ED 047 189

DOCUMENT RESUME

24 AA 0;30 582

AUTHOF hog(je, WilliaE A.

11.11_J- Flannirj Year-Pound F,chool Iporation (A

of the Vollry Vies, Sccol 7:istrict Plan).,t.w...,Lt

Valley vi,w Di2triCt T('cwrort T11.Office or 1.,.aucation (HiT:14), p.L. E ur.TeduS:ONS A3I,NCYof Fescrarcl.

E,UiCIAU NO IiR-0-0011PUP DAaL Jan 716?A.:17 OF(;-6-7(42(`GE)

11p.

FDliS PhICiDESCPIPTORS

FohNTITIhriS

ABSTRACT

Price :!?-0.+:5AllminiFtratioh, *Corc:IunityFxpenditure Per Stud(nt, Planning, *ScLolulin,T,*School Schedules, Sacf: lltilii tior,, "Y!az FoundSchools*Valley Vi(w iistrict

1 }o, year-rou0 school ni.or6lion 0t 1r,o alley ViewSchool Listfict is do:.crihe6 from its plannin9 sta,ps throulh thei7plemntation of the Ulan,.. A "4',-.1"-: Plam" p1_,7/irl$ S for ,teach iu i1

forty-1 ,v,? days of intruction ano day'; ofvacati - ;iith thc cycle 1.elcatel fo;)! Liner; each ycaf-, on-rourti ofthe pupils are (70i V1CItiOr. at any one ti7,0. 'The , 3'1!i shownthat the.re tnfee main problem:, to nc solvol in inuoitakino such aplan. these arc: studint schedulinq, teactikr schodulin,l, and winninqcommunity EuElort. Tho most difficult of those is ztidPntbut this prollem can bQ cased cont,ilciably icy the' ,1:;( 01

individualized instruction and by having as iar90 ,In ovrollnt aspossible in each school. Attached arc ag,enices includintinstruments uL,21 in the study and gdo:-tioAnaros u; 1 1r0AJ COflCC71AAparticipants. (PAS)

o

O

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

1

1

0

REPORTProject No. 0-0011

urant No, OF:G-0-70-264? (508)

PLANNING A YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL GPI:RATION(A Case-Study of the Valley View School Distrik-t 5-15 Han)

William 1\1. RoggeValley View School District

590 Delmont Avcnu(..Itcmcoville

Loclp,-)rt, Illinois604 11

January, 197]

1J. S. DI.:PAR'IMENTIlEA1:111, EDUCAT1ON, AND NVE:_rAltI.;

Office of Eduk. ail onBureau of 1:c. ch

1

FlNAl REPORTProject No. 0-0011

Grant No. OEG-0-70-264G (5US)

PLANNUNG A YEAR -ROUND 3C1100L OPERATION

(A Case-Study of the Valley View School District 45-15 Plan)

William M. RoggeValley View School District

590 Belin!-,nt yveljueRoi»eoville

Lockport, Illinois60,141

January, 197]

The research reported herein was performed pm suant to a grantwith the Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education,and Welfare. Contractor:, undertaking such projects under Govern-ment sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professionaljudgment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinionsstated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official Office ofEducation position Or 1)01 iCy

U. S. DEPARTMENT OEHEALTH, EDUCATION, AN]) WELFARE

Office of EducationBureau of Research

This report is possible only because the wholecommunity of Valley View School District was willing to beinvolved and to be observed while undertaking a significantinnovation in American education.

Special acknowledgements must be given to theValley View School Board and all of the administrators andteachers who were willing to put up with hours of questioningand other inconveniences of data collecting.

The project itself was the re.lult of the constantinquiry of James Clove. lie saw the larger impact of theValley View 15-15 Plan on American education. His constantattention gave assurance that the project would be completedso that both the neer', of the district and the interests ofoutside persons and groups would he satisfied.

The citizens of Valley View can be proud of theirschool district.

V'illiam M. RoggeJanuary, 1971Urbana, Illinois

TAM A.: OF CONTI:IN:TS

'J'A1)1.1.: CO:\:'.IT:\ TS ii

01' STUDY

ClIAPTI:11 J '('v1i onvicl School 0i,..1.,Aio.of; ?

C1IAJ'T1.;],t )1 I'vcpar;qjon fol. thc )']iiCononunity)13).111 of all Me%

'1'he 45-1S

(:11A1)TE1 111 View School 1)in.vict on 'inc 30, 1'00

7

8

9

1

'14

Connonnity Suppoft 7,1

Stud, ii AeLievenv..ut 73

7.1

Stud i-)1 Survey

(111/11)".1);A 1V Evalualion ztud 1Zefcitrch 1)esi5J) 31

Jul i'oductjrji 3)

A 1katic,il;41y for 1.:v:thrition by N'icv.'E(hoo) t 33

Itc se;krt..h Dc!;jrn 40

CHA1)",11,',It ('oirr1'r-j rr 3d 1tcconnslon(lkiion, 41

lntr o(ltic ton 41

ItC0(.7i)111(.71(htiMIS mm' Volley Vicv,,

1cco,lon(1;11]oin. I()4?.

Stt;e,A-.(1, Y11.-1Z,olnicl Sdrrl OficriAion

.\ 1'1'1;o:1)1(1:S:

A. 17v,Ituolv in 1.11.(1 mum shyly ,1()

IS. '1 he V:Illey

C. 1113ui.ih

1).

11-.) S(.1u,(0 r);,,,iind f..

if ;;I:Jf

(,o,

(q. At' 15, PC/0 ^,C)

ii

A1'1 '1';,\,1 )1(:]:;;

Siu(1(.;11 hiLycLut.ni

. SuvcyG. Com1,1.17171}.

11, Fif;al Att:dr:i!;

0

SUMMARY

This report cover:; the planning and collection of baselinedata for the beginning of zt year-round school operation, T',e opera-tion started on June 30, 1970, at Valley View School District,Lockport, Illinois. The district covers over forty square miles ofprimarily rural arcs in County, about one-half hour drive fromthe center of Chicago,

The district created the "45-15 Plan" which provides about6, 000 pupils, grades kindergarten through eight, forty-five days ofinstruction and fifteen equivalent school days of vacation. The cyclerepeats four boles each year. However, only one-fourth of the pupilsare on vacation at any One time,

Baseline data included student achievement, teacher opinions,student description, of their classrooms, community opinions, andcosts of operation, The data showed ;hat the community entered the45-15 Plan with a strong feeling of support, though a few familieswere strongly against it. Also, these families were CriiiCal ofalmost all features of the school district. P few teachers werestrongly against the Plan, but many of them indicated that they didnot intend to remain in the district.

The initial cost analysis showed that savings :night be a: high?,'S five percent, prin-,arily due to reduced debt retirement paymentsper pupil, Whatever the amount of the savings, it %vill be almostimmediately realized because the _one-third space increase generatedby the 45-15 Plan will be used up in about a year and a half or ler s.The population movement from the Chicago Metropolitan area willoverrun tlie district in ten to twenty years. The enrollment mayincrease from 6,000 to 20,000 pupils by 1950,

Unlike earlier adou'ion,,, of year-round operations, this onecan be researched in ,great depth because of the large quantity ofdata already colleccd on various features of the Plan and the impactit may In on the community.

1 he Valley View experience shows that most reheel .listrirtscould implement a similar plan if three problems ;"'11*(' :011edThese arc student scheduling, teacher scheduling, and winningcommunity support. Little else appeared to be a tough problem fordistrict personnel and the scheel boa] to solve,

C.11AP'l ER

FEIthIEN".1. FOR YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL OPERATIONS

already clear that Valley View- School District 096,Lockport, Illinois, has undertaken a unique, year-round schooloperation that began on June 30, 1970, The uniqueness consists ofsplitting the traditional three -month summer vacation into fourapproximately equal .cel,,n-telita. Each segment is about three weekslong, one for each season of the year. In this way, each family hasthe same vacation pattern. Actual use of ?atit a ealc.;;flar occurreeon July 1, 1969, in a single School, the Becky Da\ id School of theFrancis Howell Public School District in St. Charles County,Missouri,' Valley View School District is the first to make it asystem-wide calendar, The imporiance of the "equal" treatmentfor all families seems evident When reviewing the history of manyother year-round operations that ha \ e ceased, Schoenfeld andSchmitz2 concluded in their review that one of the major deterrentshas been the unfairness felt by the community when one-fourth of thefamilies must take winter vacations as recptired in the stagr,eredquarter system, the most used pattern for year-round operations by,pu:)lic schools until ninny efforts to extend the school year to 200or more regular school days, Ralph 1:inthrough, 3 in a recentconference on the extended school yea], completely clismissed 11 estaggered quarter plan with this "With the mult;tude of year-round plans available today, the 1.raditioual four-quarter pion is oneof the most tifiwok;ible plans proposed, I no longer consider it afeas,ible plan,"

Since all earlier experiments in year-round school operations,other than volunlary attendance summer programs, have gone out of

to hope that t!,,se beginning now, suchas the program at Atlanta, Georgia, or in NoNa High School, FortLauderdale, Florida, arc assured of pelliianence unless left on avoluntary basis, Are there any new forces and trends that mightincrease the likelihood of longer survival?

At least two trends might assure 101111er for thoseyear-round operations that use compulsory pupil attendance throughthe summer months, whether for the lisual 180 school days per yearor for an acreleratcd lu'clule that could go up to 2.10 days per year.The first development i' the demand by icgi:lators and taxpayers furmore efficient and effeet;ve use of tax monies. '1 he term, accounta-bility, is f re quentl y used to cm yrnp;IF,s concerns, In ibesudiscuss:ens, scrions attchtion is being .1i.\-en to the voucher system,whereby a family would be gi\ en a voucher with "x" amount of dollarsper child in use any public or private school chosen by the family.Of course, the school w.i.puld have tee meet Stand-ird5 that would lieestablished by the repulatinr, agencies. 'I. he idea is not new. It is

knn,n to nneet. tie I, In addition to tnvnn,:hej s ystuin, fie In d eNperiment,itien iF 1111(1l'Iv.-;ty with perfot01 1111e5

Il

contracts, A cc»npany or ag,eney contracts with lmnother agency toteach or train a group if students or trainees to a specified le\ cl ofperformance, If the learners do not reach the level specified, thecontractors are not paid or arc penalized firrtncially in other ways,

'The second development, more profuse and soinctinas Vague,IS the dissatisfaction with existing instructional patter us, Dozens ofbooks are being written by authors who demand reform and v,,ho reflecta deep dissatisfaction with public schools Ly,. many diverse groups,(See, for example, Radical School Reform,' a collection of writingsby some of these authors,) This discontent will not directly causemore year-round school operations, but it helps establish an atinos-phere in which more experimentation will occur.

In addition to the general ferment for school change have beenthe efforts of several groups and individuals to get public schools toinstitute various models of year-round operations, George M, Jensen,who served as president of the Minneapolis School Board, has widelypublicized the extended use of school facilities, It is not clear whatthe impact of Jensen and others has been, Because these people andcroups are perceived as outsiders by educators, many educators willresist thl:- well-intentioned recommendations, their ideasarc picked up by groups with political clout or directly by legi ,httors,their influences to--,y be little,

Many descriptions are ilVA 11.11:k :t1,1.!Il early programs, suchas those put into operation by Bluffton, hulianab (1 9 0 1-1 5). Newark'New Jersey9 (191 )_ -3 1), Nashville, Tennesse,1 0 (197.7 1, 13irluipl >a,Po»nsylvanial l .1928 -38), and Ambridge, Pennsylvania ,In each of these, the regular curricultmm Wits extended into thesummer with some Merl sure of compulsory attendance, Incontrast is the far greater number '..tf school systems that have movedinto summer programs with voluntary attundan«c and with remedialand envichment objecti%es, Generally, thet.e programs have onlyemployed pprt of the faculty and used only part of Ow physi(;11 facil-ities. 'I hey added to overall school costs and have been justifiedterms of improving the quality of cdut ational services,

It is difficult to draw tnany firm conclusions about theseefforts that wo,rld be goo{1 1.:uidehn' s 1"1. '11"1 districtsMany of the conclusions drown 1,y oths: rs are obv laden

points: of view aid not on god One( lid ,ibout limeprograms, Yet, (lie various a «iunl t- can b gleaned for sometentative conclusions:

I Since comi-11s ory atten,lance, year -round proiramshave not Lccewe institutionoli/ecl, the few earlierexperiments t he jud:( rl as idiom yncratim

Som., spet i,m1 of uniqg It Hilies contrdnot (I tma

the crcotion m f each prgf.,01,. 01;1,0 thc:c di.5-appei-I, a dt

the progri-rms nticd, h iti ant even clear from thehistorical itccounts v.That these featoces might 'wivebeen. Thus, though need for classreo]ri space andshortage of funds a..e often cited as the ,hiof causesof the A i and Atnbridt,e pror,rarns, other r.litictsfaced similar shoitaw?s but did move to a year-roundoperation. ?vivo e than f;uaru stle:-,5 was involved.

With tle:t possible exception of the Newarl: iirograin,rigorous evaluation desi,c,,ns ver(' not applicd to theearlier year -round prograins, Ouc critical re Vie W1 3summed up the literature as ;reporting ",,, very littlefactual data" and providing "little evidence to condoneor condemn year-round school operation." However,more useful information is bein4; collected now, such ason the program in Missouri. 1.1

The concepts and terminohTy are nviNcd and confusing.Some vvriters view a year round operation as a broad,even fundamental concept, worthy e.iotigh to serve as 0central, organizing theme. C1ther writers see all of theideas as minor extensions of other, wen -cstablishedconcepts and practices, A year- round operation, tothem, is an application of good management practices,a view c7vpressed in tltr. punlication. Es.teurt'.Use of School F.leilitieF 15

- _

r`,1illfd (+0y, fiV ruecific Variables Orcriteria are involved that will define most of the unHuifeatures of the various plat-, so far created:

a. Is attenclanc c mandatory during the whole schoolyear except when a pupil is scheduled for vacation?

b. Is the est.iblish-ed curriculum available during allperiods of the school year?

e. Cats students accelerate the-.r attendance so thatthey will gr;nluate in less time?

d, Does each family have the sain: vacation

Is 111c Fear divided into two, three, or four portsor pc.riocli?

()ther variables arc also involved, such as whetherteachers arc on a full-year contract or not., 1101,...4.,ver,the other V11.1:WICS scent loss related to ilk(' fel 'Ili/wiry:5.pt ehleitis th in the first ftve, five variables inahcpossible at irast thirty-ivy-1, diffe,. nt c mhina !ions.This prolrahly is Ole prime e \pltin-ition for the confin ionill t('Imi.1"1"0'. lalde 1 s soin of the possildecolohinations,

Tab

le I

Som

e C

ombi

natio

ns o

f V

aria

bles

Pos

sibl

e in

Yea

r-R

ound

Sch

ool O

pera

tion

Req

uire

dA

ttend

ance

Full

Cur

ricu

luri

All

Yea

r

Sim

ilar

Acc

eler

atio

nor

Sam

ePr

ovid

edV

acat

ion

Org

aniz

atio

n

1.45

-15

Plan

Yes

(180

ci-

Lys

)Y

esN

oY

es(3

wee

ksea

ch s

easo

n)

Ove

rlap

ping

quar

ter:

.

Z.

Atla

nta,

Geo

rgia

No

Yes

Yes

No

Qua

rter

s(C

hoos

e 3

of4

quar

tcrL

)

3.17

.nri

Car

nent

"(I

n su

mm

er)

Yes

Yes

Sem

este

rs p

lus

sum

mer

4.A

.cc.

eler

atio

n"Y

esY

esY

esY

esA

ny o

ne p

ossi

ble

(Req

uire

d)

5."S

tagg

ered

Qua

rter

"Y

esY

esN

oN

oQ

uart

er(s

tagg

ered

)

4. Many cifferent reasons are given by the people assoeiat, uwith the various programs for establishing, maintaininl,and endi»g the programs. The reasons given seein toreflect both the biases of the reporters and some of thetrue events, Stated explanations vary from strictlyfinancial pr2ssures (which, in turn, may explain little,for these 1.essures flow from many other causes) toconcerns for quality improvements in education,

More than hi almost any other educational innovationintroduced into the public schools during this century,the community is a powerful factor In year-round oper-ations. Other innovztions do not so clearly affect thefamily. Many families can be unaware of modernmathematics, addition of school counselors, or theaddition of new cGUrSeS. Many families can be awareof but be little affected by school cc»isolidation or thebuilding of school libraries. However, change in schoolvacation patterns is both highly visible and demandingof family adjustments, sometimes even if the familyha-. no children in s:hool.

11

CHAPTYR IIPREPARATION FOR THE ''45 -15 PLAN"

Community

The Valley View School District q96, an elementary district(K-8), grew cut of consolidation of five small, rural districts iii1953, with an initial enrollment of eighty-nine pupils. The super-intendent, Kenneth Hermansen, who was employed at that lilac, wasstill superintendent. on Juno -7.0, 1970, when the 45-15 Plan first wentinto operation. Membership on the seven-man school board has beenvery stable since 1953.

The new district covers over forty square miles of rich Illinoisfarm land in Will County, just acroLs the boundary with Cook Countyin which Chicago lies. The district also has been in the path of theonrushing migration from Cook County, ani in another ten to fifteenyears will be probably entirely engulfed with residential housing andsome new industry. The district has two incorporated villages,Romeoville and Bolingbrook, south and north respectively of Inter-state 55 which runs from Chicago to Springfield and St. Louis.

Seyera: housing developments are underway, rapidly consum-ing the farm land, This growth is reflected in the school distric Lwhich has grown from an enrollment of eighty-nine students tonearly sixty-eight hundred by late 1970. Projections for the futureshow a possible enrollment of .%venty thousand or more students by1930. In contrast, assessed val _ion per student has decreasedfrom $162, 093 in 1953-54 to $21,440 in 1969-70. This drop isimportant to the school district whic last year had to raise 67')0of all revenues from local Lax dollars.

Most of the people corning into the connnunity have been lair-cbz.sing homes in a narrow price range of fifteen to twenty-fivethousand dollars. Ilovaver, one recent devel,,pment is offering arange of twenty-five to forty-five thousand. Many ,.f the people areof Polish and Italian backgrounds. About seventy percent are Catho-lics, Yew arc in the prolesions; most of the Lreachvinners are inmanufacturing, construction, and service industries. Most familieshave moved out from Cook County schools, a majority frcin the cityof Chicago.

Despite the large number of Catholic families, only tv :o paro-chial schools now serve Remeoville and Dolingbrook, enrolling lessthan ...our hundred stcdents. It scents unlikely that this cnrollin-mtwill inc. 1,1n1C!.- C11.1111`,CS in the law. will allow dirt ct tax support.

l he conniumitv is r.tpidly chany.in,t, by the influx of families,many still oriented toward Chicago. 'the original rural orientation

7 -

is disappearing. 'fhe original community existed in the sli:.«lov ofJoliet, a large industrial river town ten miles to the south, -indLockport, six miles to the south, The students, upon leaving thejunior high school, go into the Lockport high school system whichhas three schools and a total enroihrient of thirty -ghtThe high school district is pre.-ently undergoing legal procedures tosplit into two separate districts, one nearly cotcrininou3 with theelementary district.

The largest enterprises within the Valley View School Districtare farming, an oil distillery, and a medical supplies manufacture,Two retail complexes arc fon-nine, ore in each village. However,these complexes are lagging behind the population growth,

Birth of an Idea

As can be easily imagined, the school district was constantlyfacing ern-on-tient c-'ises. New construction had to proceed rapidly.Double shifts were uired several times. The constructionschedule provided classroom space as shown in Table 2:

Table 2

School

Valley View

Park View

North View

West View

Additions of Classroom Spacefoi Valley View Schc.ol District

1953-5<; expanded to thirty-one classrooms in 1955-',9

1967.-63; expandeo to fox ty-fourclossrooms, 1963-64

1963-64; with thirty-oneclassrooms

(junior high school) 191,6-67;with leaching stations andcapacity fur twelv hundredpupils

Brook View 196;-69; with sixteen ciasFrukont

Ridge View 196 (.,; with sixteen c),-155reomF

In August, 1969, the school hoard studied the proidem ofcrowded classrooms. At the sul.4estion of the superintendent, thc,topic Of a year-round operation vas opened, l he board movedqui( :s131;',' a rcsolulion that a frill study be mach of a stag recdpl in that would tlirce fourths of the 5-(110.(rlt- to be enrolledat one time, it th,11 encumber, the superlid(ndent,and an assist.mnt suio-riwt nch..nt atIk nib d a onft i, nc c on year-row-alschool (m.r.ition in ()A 1.1ar. N..11111'1'11 1)1ilwis t'rsity.

8

Nearly One hundred registered participaAs attended; over fifty schooldistricts Verl2 represented, so the of a year-round operation waswell known. Also, many other school systems were facing classroom-homages and limited revenues, 0101101 few, ;,s seriously is the ValleyView School District. Yet, only Valley View made the change, so thetruly unique c/cinents oi C"illS,'S of this district going, into the 5-15Plan have to lie in the makeup of the people of the school beard, theachninistfation, and probably the community,

While a lot of literature vas read by the staff, two questionsseemed unau.swerable. (1) 1 itiv: was the community to be %vein over tothe idea, when so many ier new, to the community and relativelyuninvolved in school affairs? Community resistance had clearlydoomed all earlier plans eventually. (?) Flow' could the originalidea of a staggered nine-thrce (niue w'(ie1-s in school, three weeksOn vacation) plan be scheduled so that each quarter 01 nine weeitswould have about the same number of school days, whet legal holi-days were not evenly distributed throughout the year?

The second problem was solved first when James Gage,while struggling with a master schedule v.ith Pat Page, hit upon avery simple but novel solution. Instead of starting a quar'.cr onMonday and ending it on Friday, they would start it and end it on anyday of tho week, when f' ty-five school days had gone by. The factthat the zinswer had no' i)eien described is surprising, consideringthe plethora of calendars recently published.

The first problem was tackled much like a politicalwith meetings, coffee hours, spot radio announcements, printedmaterials, slides and tape presentations, and dozens of similarideas, Future studies of the history of the 45-15 Plan might find ituseful to delve into the dy»ansics of winning support from a communitylittle involved in school affairs. In contrast, the successful intro-duction of the 15-15 Plan subsequently has focuser: ;i::(1 continueto focus community attention on the schools, unlike: almost any otherinnovation.

The master Et heaule, once worl-ed out for two years inadvance, made it much easier both to explain time plan and to antici-pate other problems. lhe most serious of these was the schedulingof students. The school board retained the set vices of a pi :vatsconsulting firm specialising ii, computer programming. The solutionworked Out is covered in the next section.

The 45-15 Nan

The 45-15 l'hen is quite simple in ti-itlire, (See Appendi\ 11.)One -four!l, of the students attend St cot fiir!ee -five day,. On thesi\te(lirsi a second group enters On the thirty-firstthi?fi droop enters. On the forty-si.ti da , the first group ;_,,oes

aril the fi trtli to tlscnn, 1111, cn days later,the (ye le i,t,irts agiii», as ElioN'.'11 in 'fable

fable 3Cycling of Groups Under the .15-15 Plan

Groups 0 15 30 45 60 75

(A, B, C I)) A --------------- 1) ------------------------(90)-B

(start secondquarter or ,I5 d:, A- -(l

C

The obvious question for pupil scheduling is naming the studentsand families who are to be in each of the groups. Valley View did thisby taking small geographical areas and putting all families in the areain one "track" or attendance group, Each area was called a "census\wit," Prior to experimenting with various possible census units,

h 0 se -1.0-house canwiss was taken by volunteer groups for the dis-trict to get the most accurate count possible of school aged and pre-school aged children, A modest fee was paid to the canvasser.Actual schedules were then worked out to see what kind of balanceswere achieved among classes and attendance grOup5. Possible diffi-culties can h? better .s.:.en through an illustration.

Assume that there arc sixty pupils at the second grade levelat each of three schcols, for a total cf one hundred eighty pupils.Under the traditional schedule, each. reli00) would have two SCCondgrade classes. Under the < <_5 -15 Plan, only forty-five of these s udentswould enroll on the first day of school, tulles: some other arrangementswere made, At least three possible alternatives exist.. (1) Enrollthirty in the first and third groups and sixty in the second and fourth.(Note that if the throw of the dice put!. forty-five students at one schoolunder the traditional plan, two small classes must be formed or :if-teen of the stnoent.; must Lie bussed to another school.) 'This Solutionrequires study on the effect of the other grades, because all childrenfro,n one family taut lie kept in one attendance group. (?) ExpandOr contract age or mental range within a class, thereby shiftingsome students by grad:, level, (3) Combine two groups, with theteacher starting with fifteen pupils 1.in fifteen days, and then joinedby fifteen additional students from the next attendance group.

The illuzuration was deliberately chosen as a dif.icult probli'mto solve. The actual solution to this type of problem vas to adjustcensus units (in effect, school boundary lines) until a suitable balancewas reached.

Once the student Fkl;echlinti, I ad been mostother probleinS could I t 5--olctl

Tea( he r eui ki rs c i aid lie emplo)cd for just181 e1. vs (1S0 tc hoot plus four clo)s of iusc rice Liiiinin),

'3

could be given longer c C 111) to 2,1,1 days which would meanthat the teacher would be employed thrc.ugh all of the days of the yeardurin:., which pupils attend. Actually, the teachers 'core given asmuch choice about length of contracts as possible. As a cc suit, con-tracts varied from 184 days to 27-1 days for the first fiscal year.Contracts for the first year could g, from June 30, 1970, thr,,,,IghAugust, 1971, inclusively. Over half of the woinen teachers tookthe zniniinum contract of 181 days while about -13% of the men teachel-sac,:epted 274-day contract_. A higher number of the short contractswere issued for teachers in grades one to three, with GP:: working184 clays.

One innovation created by the teachers made some schedulingproblems simpler for pupils and teachers. Three teachers would gotogether to :oral a "cooperative," assuming responsibility for 12,0

but with only 90 in attendance at any one time. About half of:he. teachers, grades K through six, adapted this team approachduring the first year.

Non-tea l.,,ihinprofessionals a d other personnel. Because the45-15 Plan allows one-third greater use of existing physical space(in effect, an extra sixty days per year), the teachers, administrators,non-teaching professionals, and support personnel who would havebeen needed in the buildings not built wer. not employed except whenless than a full -iear contract was issued. Somet:ines replacementswere employed. Actually, no acv; prisitions were created and somepositions were left vacant for short periods of time if the person didnot sign a full-year contract. As the administrators were alreadyon eleven-month contracts, they were, in effect, given a differentkind of responsibility for two months. Pre.iously, during the summermonths, they used their time away (corn daily school operations. Nowthe school operates through the summer months. Librarians, counse-lors, special teachers, maintenance personnel, bus drivers, andothers were also given longer contracts or were employed for moredays each year.

Phasing_in. The district had to de( idk whither to graduallymove into the .15-15 Plan or to start throe groups at once. They chosea gradual phasing in that extended front Junk., 30, 1970, to Alloistwhen the third attendance group enrolled. 'the first group, ,-;tariingin June, gave up its traditional summer vacation and instead receivedfour three-week vacations (fifteen school days), one during each seasonof the year. 'flee last group entered on September 1, 1970. This groupnot only re:eived the traditional summer vacation Ina also the fourthree -week vacations throughout the year. However, the year'sacademic work would not be completed the end of August, 1971.The phasing-in procedure, as used by Valley View, is the only fea-ture that ch-arly treati,d different attendance groups in different ways,but only for the first year. In contrast, the reeky David Schoolbegan three of the fol.:r groups it our r in order to got in all of Ili,:required Fe It n,1 (lay,. 1 his tart. --t d to the ..tiar,,k./edquarter" plm in wliik h 01,0-follt.th (o4. flit Ltmiljus rckeive "uhf

treatment by being assigned to winter WI C%. In addition, ifValley View had wanted to solve the extra problems of staining threeitrolips at once, then even that differential treatment would have beenremoved, However, the principals unanimously reporte e that, thegradual phasing-in made the opening, day of (lasses the cc.sicsl thatthey had ever experienced. They had about a fourth of the openingday enrollment of the previous year.

Classyoom..schedulinlo Each principal and his staff werefaced with a choice of three or More options in the ;,,ssignment ofclassrooms to teachers and pupils. Under the "cooperative" plan,three teachers would have three Ch't Sti room a to use as they wish for120 pupils, 90 in atte»dance at any one time. If a teacher had a 184 -day contract, then she and her pupils would go on vacation at the sametime but Come back to a new classroom because the classroom theyvacated would be taken up by the next attendance grour, that returnedwhen they went on vacation. If a teacher had a 211-day contract andwas not part of a cooperative team, then she could e 11 lain in One roombut would receive a new group of students for each quarter. Anotherpossibility would be for her to be assigned other duties, such assubstituting during the fifteen days her pupils we re on vacation, Allof these alternatives actually were used, plus some others.

Other considerations, Many other decisions had to be madeto complete the schednlinl of pupils and staff. These are brieflylisted below:

All children from a family are to be in the sameattendance group.

Z. A census unit should respect the sociologicaldimensions of a neighborhood.

3. Pupils within walking distance of a school sln.;oldattend that school.

Pupils should remain at cane school for a year.

5. Class size trust vary no more than in previous years.

(t. Elective course:. at the junior high school must beequally available to all attendance groups.

7. Transportation policy would remain basically thesame for the first year of operation.

1,egal Dimensions

3n l-'ebettary, 19(,9, the Cook County :uperiutndent issued apublication that said, ".1 is r to in ( s

in the are neess,lry." Inform:1 i gal opiii;oos al: .o upheld this

1 2

1.1

view. I IC11CO, 11C V,' JCVi S]1. Fc'd t re1110Ved sonic of tileambigni'_y in the school code. The bill was Ligned into law byRichard Oi.01 vie at a ceremony in the school dintrict on June 29, 1970.(See Appendix C for some of the Illinois legislation that directly appliesto the 15 -15 Plan.)

lu13

CHAPTER 311

VALLEY VIEW SCI1001. DISTRICT 696 ON JuNI: 30, 1970

Because earlier year -round operations were not sufficientlydocumented, a major effort was made through this project to providebaseline data by which to measure the consequences of the 15-15 Plan.Data were collected on faculty morale and attitudes, student achieve-ment, evaluation priorities, community support, finances, and otherdimensions.

Most of the data collected within the two -mouth periodjust prior to the opening of the prorzim on June 30, 1970, Therewere two exceptions. Student attitudes were salupled shortly afterthe students enrolled, and community support W a S Sampled on differ-ent date:: for each attendance group, Since p11pi15 in the last groupdid not enter until Seinen-Wen, the data were collected in August,after the first group had already entered school.

A. PROFESSIONAL STAFF

On May 15, 197(1 the entire professional staff of Valley ViewSchool Disti jet e9(., asked to complete a questionnaire titled,"Final Professional Evaluation," while attcrdiiig a final, generalmeeting aboo' the 15-15 P1011, scheduled to start on ;Julie 30, 1970,(See Appendices A and D.) A total of 2.10 questionnaires were returned,though 79 were not fully completed. The incomplete ones were com-pared by individual item with the 161 completed ones to sec if signifi-cant differences existed be tween the two groups, While none werefound that reached the loo level of confidence, the two groups wereanalyzed separately as well as a combined s;implc,

Two general ;dads of a n,ilvf,is were made. First, a formalfactor analysis was made of Cie items used in the Vesti(lmaire aswell as a stud} of items of similai face content. Second, comparisonswere made by individual item by splitting, the total sample (incompleteand complete co.mbined) b, six differ cult critcrien variables. Thesewere by grade level (elerne.ilarv, interm.'diate, and junior hi:;11 scln,o1),whether a member of a cooperative team, professional role, sex, age,and whether the individual pre-lic ted he woold be still worhing in theschool district at the end of two years of the 15 -1 5 Phin.

Close study of the 161 (105,titqinair(.s fully completed led tothese results:

1. Only a small pereentage of the staff showed mild OrStI ill( 5 --15 Plan. The larrest percentare trivoIN ed (12' ) unli.aud the lwlief th.it the 15-15Plan v:10,lIti not he in Opirratioll in fiie years. On theoft( r hand, a majority rio ) said they inild1y or heartily.agreed .ivith the :t.it ment th . the 3H15 1)1rii is ticmost inIrt'.!' (11 1 "" l'"1 1'"i13(pat, d ii.. 1(t)

2, The faculty were less certain about student learnito,.?,under the I5-15 Plan, For example, about thoughtstudents vvould learn more becau:-e of several shertvacations rather that One long suinmer vacation, How-ever, about half said they would not malae a predictionone way or 111.0 other, t1-10.01 Old y about thoughtlearning would be less, Al...0, over half of the facultythought abscliteciS311 woubl be higher during the SUrrIrrle

hc.,c was even less agreement by the faculty about thepossi'ale impact on the fac%.1ty themselves, On fiveitems dealing with faculty behavior, fi:cau 31';',, to 50'''L,of the respond:nts said they did not know or had mixedreactions about the statements. Most agreement (56')::)was with the statement that a higher proper tier of menteachers would be employed the 15-1 5 Plan lasted forfive years. About a third (29'1) thought teachers wouldbecome "tired and worn out" if employed under a 2.1.1day contract.

4, The staff also was not in agreement on the possibb-2relationships between the Plan and other innova-tions. About a fourth (25":) thought individualt/edinstruction would be easier under ll,. .15-1 5 Plan butau almost equal number (27'-c) thought it would be moredifficult, A similar pattern of thought was show,: Onitems that related the 15-1 5 Plan and intro -schoolrelations. Thus, about 25', thought trust betweenteachers and administrato:s would increase but aboutIV; thought it would decrease.

5. The staff showed mostly positive or neutral opinionsabout the reactions of the conlrnuniiy, Thus, over athird (39'1 thought families would get used to shortvacation ant: V:01.11C1 hive Mild or strong support afterone year. Smaller proportions (10 to 27'') believedthat the coi,nciunity would become 111C.r C' negative shownon items such as families moving in or out of the com-munity aitcl .11e mood of ta\par-rs.

'the faculty sere given maximum possible freedom inselecting the length of their contracts, varying from184 to 241 days for one fiscal year. This apparentlyace ousted for the who were happy about the lengthof their contracts, compared to who expressed dis-satisfaction, An even larger number (80 ') were happywith the attendan«. grasp they v.-ere initially assignedto, though this wold ?lot Lc an important col( F1.110, of t11',;-c 21 y ,11 11.1 contrail,only 1971 were happy with OA ir h i try schedule,a much rt;r r will they y inildlyslrongly dissathf1ed,

1520

7. Surprisingly, large huntbetu of the fi ulty. thought thatcosts would inci:easc for administration, main-tenance, and instructional materials, and that onlybuilding costs yould go down, Forty -four percent ofthe faculty thought inaintena:,e and repair costs Vouldgo up, 35n thought so about administrative costs, and34(7,10 for instructional materials and equipment. This isin contrast to the expectations of the administration andschool board that all of these costs per child certainlywould not increase and hopefully would decease,

Factor Analysis

The data of the 221 completed or nearly completed question-naires were submitted to it factor analysis. A program for missingdata correlations was used. First a principal. axisand then an orthogonal rotation. Both approaches brought out a gcheralattitude. This factor accounted for 12,7°:, of the variance under theprincipal axis and 13,6c,1, with the orthogonal when ten factors wereprocessed. The items with heaviest loadings 131 each are listed below:

Table 1Principal Axis

Item Topic. Loading6 Principal's un.lerstand:ng .518 Respondent' s attitude9 Planning done .59

11 Student achievement .5612 Family adjustment .6326 Life span of 45-15 Plan27 Parental attitude .5529 Use of individualized instruction .5139 Teacher-student trust .5140 Teacher-administrator trust .5442 Excitement of 15-15 Plait , 62

Table 5Orthogonal Rotation

Item Topic Loading8 Respondent's attitude .42

25 Need for inst.-I-vice training , 4126 Life span of 45-15 Plan .5021 Parental attitude .4834 Building costs .4137 Nat onal image .6639 Teacuer-studs 1J trust .4441 Taxpayer attitude , 5342 Excitment of 15-15 Plan .52

2i

The items overlap to a considerable 111 bL,th inia4seson the first factor. Inspection of items rho:,:-. the i.ems tobe i',e1; r;i1 in nature.

Subsequent factors ac!-ounted for a lot less variance under theprincipal axis analysis (6. etc.). 11.1w:ever,the orthogonal ro:t.tion dropped off less (12.7°'0, 11, 10.9('0, 9. no,etc.).

Analysis 12y Criterion riable

All of the ydestioimaires were subjected to analysis by .:am-paring mea',1S of individual items. A "strongly agree" was scoredas a "1," on up to a ''5" for a "strongly disagree." '1' -tests on thedifferences between the means were computed, Items with the largestt-values are discussed below. Fever significant differences werefound than anticipated. As the degrees of freedom 'ere within a verynarrow raiig (179 to 228), a t-value of Z.00 was considered signifi-cant at the level of confiden,:e and 2.'65 at the rr, level for allitems discussed. Hence, all differences that reached a t-value of2.00 are included in the next five tables, A mean over 3.00 meansmore disagreement than agreement with the statement.

Item

Tab..e 6Grad,- Level Dificrf.nces Among Teachers

(High means indicate disagreement.)Primary vs Primary vs lntermediate vslntermcdiate Junior High t_houl Junior High School

Length ofcontract issatisfactory5. Attendancefor C,V,11 familyis satisfactoi y6. Principal'sutxlcrstanding

p)(.1

13. .1 rat 1, Afainil:cs v.:111 1)(most t,, i:at:\ eIS. C(,):mv--.tut.,'

vac a tion s

?I, Nlaii1(nanr.e C m t!iw i l l g o t p

Mn == 1.36n 1 78

t 2- 2,06

Mn = 2.75 Mn Z. 25Mn = 2.25 Mn = 2, 73t t 218

1. 68

t

I. 0.1

:-, 1.75NIn =, 1, 3't 1.01

\';t 7.: 3, 01Nth 2, 60

- 17

Since .-111 of the value s of 1 in Table 6 just barely exceed the5'10 le%'..1 of confidence, it seems that fey- if any important differencesexist among the teachers according to grade level, Furthermore,sinrc all meails but one are below 3,00, more agreement is indicatedfor the statements than disagreement.

Item

Table 7Differences BetAveen Teachers

On or Not Mcm1).-rs of Cooperative Teams(High means indicate disagreements.)

Cooperative Non-Cooperati VCMn t Mn

4. Cooperative teamsare a fine arrangement 1.80 4.60 2.625. Attendance cycle forown family is satisfactory 3. 69 3,_15 f, 79

H. Students will dobcttei rcademicallybecause of 51102-1 vacations 2.73 2. 34 Z, 36

The results on Item 1 arc to be cxpec*ed. Since membershipon the cooperative teams was voluntary, it \ould he eypccted thatthose who anticipated being members would be mor-., positive. Thedis.latisfaction of team members with the a.tendance cycle fur theirown family might have been due to the fact that the cooperative teammembers signed 1ont;er contracts and thereby would work throughOw vacation periods of the it own children, Logically, hov..c..er,chan,c,ing the tracks of thQir own ebil.dren would not hc.1.17., at least furthose with 24.1-day contracts. They would v:or k through all vacationperiods of their own Childreil.

al)lc R1)iffet-e:aes itelv..een Teachers and Administr.itor,

(High means indicate (1i9.7.greeuient WtiC111."'Ilt S. )

Ite)n Tea( ILC ISI\tn

E., Pr inc 1»1(1(A.standing ( f 15-15 I'litn

l

Adnlini 5 11 at,,rsNin

is good 1,47 ?, 15 I 10

7, altitkifictuv..;11.(1 15-1r) 11;i2- is good I . 2, (,0 1, 09

8. attitv.(h tiAv,11(11 '1 is good

i1I adjnsvo,c;,t ioos

1.99

2. 70

2, 3(1 1.70

7, 00

'fable Differences Between -.leachers and .chin' -,ti tors (eontiiuic(1)

Item Teachers AdministratorsMn t Mn

13. Track A familieswill be most negative17. It will be harder toteach under 45-15 Plan

2. 57

2. 64

3. 50

2144 3.70

The administrators felt themselves more positive than theteachers thou ht they would he abort the 45-15 Plan, The administra-tors disagreed on two other key issues. They felt it would be easierto teach under the 45-15 Plan than did the teachers, and they weremore optimistic about families making the necessary adjustmentswith their vacations.

Table 9Differences Between Male and Female Staff Members

(High means indicate disagreement.)Item Men Women

Mn t Nth

3. Own salary issatisfactory 3.57 2,.12 3.1316. Elementary shouldhave more men teachers 1.73 2,94 2.2429. Individualizedinstruction is coming 2.7"i 2.71 2.36

The men expressed greater dissatisfaction with s..,lary thanwomen but weie inure positive tov,-ard cmploylng more male elvm(n-tary ta(kers, The men, perhaps bet arl!,(.. 0: the larger proportionin the junior hiw,h school, were less certain adoption of indi-vidualized instru( t11,11 01(q1C,}11)4.`111 gr(111);.: Intl a la non-0,yr \\II()11'"1.11t V:(1.1,11(1 he voin'ng th:.n those vito (lid not.

;11111)/fICIA111, n Croups .vi,115-0uirt and 1.(.31g

L111110yin:ili /]\11C< Wier: Sr /IOU) 1)1Ari,

}::\p('< tVt,11101A,

C1111)10)Incrit

1 NI)((li"14 "S th'inl\,;(111107c )cars of

1.,:olkcntDein X111 t Mn

8, ch,,n attitude isgeed tewat (1 )'hin 1,67 I, )7

011,niuti ty(Inn 1

))1.<n 1., r,!) 3. 0

1

:23') -

'fable 10, DiffC1',221CCS net V'Cel) Groups with Short and 1.(T Empt,,y-n-,ent. Expociations in V;ily View School District 96 (continued)

Item26, The 45-15 Planwill be here in fiveyears28. 'reachor turnoverwill be reduced38. Teacher effective-ness will decreaseunder 45-15 Plan

F:NlIocting two ormore years ofemployment

Mn t

Expecting thantwo more years ofemployment

Mn

I, 9S 3. 10 2.47

2. 58 2,17 2,93

3. 52 2. 57 3.05

The differences are all in the expected directions, if oneassum:-..s that t1 group expecting short employment in Valley Viewwould be generally more negative about all features of tl,e schoolsystem.

Because age was a continuous variable, correlations insteadwere used. The highest correlations with age are given in Table 11:

Table 11Correlations 13etween Agc and Specific Items

item r

45, Professional role .2516. More men needed for elementary ,:dc.cation .149, Planning by administrators (xc luding

principals) Las been i;oed .1430. Greater variation in class size will result 1329. More individualized intAruction will result 13

4. Cooperative teat n are good .1Z38. Teacher Cif( (11VC11(' Ss Will IETCC /ed. Ft: 12

- 20 -

B. C:0:\AMCN1TY SLIPPOR

UnderStZ,31dably, the school board v.'as ch.,.enly concerned i-lboetthe acceptance of the ,15-15, Plan by the citizens of the irchool district.Hence, both qtn.,iitionnaii (. and intervi Avs were used. 'fin, completeresults arc given in Appendices r and

First, a sample of 400 families was selected, 100 in eachattendance track. Each track is composed of families living incensus units ' which arc small geographical areas sonic indi-cation of neighborhood tics. l]ach school is ;.itiended by a nearlyequal number of children in each of the four attendanCe tracks. Oneattendance track is always on vacation. The sample was drawn fromboth villages, all of the major housing developments, and the ruralareas of !l' district.

QUestiOnnaires we...-e hand-delivered and collected, rebulti»gin 95% return. This was to reduce possible resistance to the evalu-ation effort. Ilowever, the high return did require one or inoicfollow-up contacts with some families.

This baseline data shored that almost no differences ofiinportance seemed to distinguish one attendance track from another.The one exception was the 1en,th of residency in the cominunity.Apparently because of the larger ninnber of rural residents in TrackC, their average ii...sitiency was about 7,4 years compared to 4.5,4.6, and 4.8 years for the cithe; three. However, this difference didnot secin to cause any other significant differences ly:itv..cien the onetrack and the other three. On items that could be compared bydifferences between means, only one other iter, was statisticallysignificant, that of the rating of elementary teachers. Track 1) vatsmore positive that hi. On other items v.ic>re means were not appro-iaiate, five item:, produced Chi2's large elicl;1, to reach thelevel of si.;nific mice or higher. Again Track 1) v;:s more positiveon Item: 9 and 11 (use of tax money and the 15-15 Plan) but shavedon Item 1.1 that they vrould he 111(.1.0 willing to change their mind aboutthe 45-15 Han. On the other hand, Track A 1;111;0 to more peoplethey judged informed about the 15-15 Phin. "this may ha.e beenbe c LI SO they v.erc the first iliae I; sc heu tled to c nlc r sc hoot whichV.-1 S June 30, 1'110. Successive tracks e..lelt entered fifteen schoo]days after the 1,rviokn7 one. Also, rat 1. A v.:.s less r IP in ti1;11

:111111116:11.;Iti%(' costs was one of the prime re t: oAs forthe .15-15 Phin.

Only one st:oistit significant diffc rein 0 v-as fl.undthe inter.icws whit '1 tit] pia( tiCiti , onequestion, tv:o fever V.,L1 S olitCr

to thir I' the and t1,1, (11,4::iir0111:61 p1",..-`5C111 It

picture ',111o(.(1 and (lie e.ip« tations n1 lie lkli11111111;ty ju,t priorto their entry i'ito thud !-( hu,d1

f

1. /Yost p).n'itive to\..ard the s(h, ol systemz.iul the 4!5 -I5 thou.;11 a )nna.11 inunlier were

is 11/111011iiI. I 10 1101.0 that 11(.;:c Nyereattitudes, la.01)1C Sh0!:(:(1 011(' acttitu le tov,-ar(1 the

ir. Aeneral i.:(1 another just to\yard the 45-15! Plan.factor a ncilysis on the rating items from the question-

nat-r.e showed a general attitude that cut across allspecifics 'incl. as bus schedules, instruction, teachers,princ:;pah, sc71ool board, and the 45-15

Table 12R-,.tings Given by Citizens to Specific Statements

1. Information abc),A1

Excelleia Good Average Poor Very Poor

the 45-15 Plan 76 125 83 21 25

2. Worth of the45-15 Plan 81 94 34 20 31

3. Efficient use oftax inmey 17 64 95 41 47.

2. While a large minority of the respondents expEc ssed aninterest in the money that the Plan 'night save, themajority shoved more concern tlbout t1le effect!: onstudents than anything else. A total of 278 said theywould sufport the P:an eve:. if no nioy.ey were sa-vedbut the Oildren learned more. A much sina11 Lumber,45, said "no" to the sam:' question, while 64 were 310icertain. A total of 276 said they would not vote for higl.u.rtaxes to void the Plan,

Thus, the citizens laid varied re;.:( ti( ol g w,11(11 f;tc-cd withhypotlieti :.11 alternatives al (I pc,ssilAe outcomes. of the45-15 Phw:

NVould you vote for ta\c.:Yes

to

iN;)

avoid the .15-15 37 276

1), 1):, y.( it believe that tic .15-1;,( l':,11Iy 3o0 ley for Ihc

district? ci 1 I

(. If students learn wort.. under the1.11 110 111,;)(A V.

Srt \. 1111,1 y0,1 thee. `upper(rate lqai? 178

(I, if Silk. 11:11; V. to 574., on(del, but F.;)(1,,.,11(lid 11....t leirn more, ..-4)C,dsul,port 11,. Plan? I !,5 I (.1

2- -

large majority tlicul.*1 they 11:1(1 re( H1Pi f)0111 (1h.1.riet

personnel, and had 1:,1],...cd a lot ;t1114H11',,, diem: /Hostdid F-A feel thms:olves or their neighbors. V..11 inforila.d,

4, The school board and the project staff wanted to sampleopiniont; of the ;:onnnunity in a way not to upset the

people involved. '')2' this 1.00 5011 (ill(' St1COM:IiI0 S 'Werehand delivered and interviewers wk,-i.0 rated by the f;,miliesafter the interviewer had left. The ratings shoved unani-mous acceptance of the intervnwers. dente, rn.anyprobably became more 110Sii1 toward school district.This provides the interesting illustration of evaluationbeing used to influence the very population beini, "measured"as contrasted to the researcher's desire to rrl \Vithout changing the population being measured,

5. Without actual experience, families were unclear whatthe "15 - I 5 Plan would do to their VaCatiull Amajority thought no changes could occur, partly becausemost could not affotd long ':orations away from 4101r-..If the family were to stay at home anyway, then when thevacation C/C(ll'S (Efft.'1'(/iCe,

G. While a large proportion of the families thow,:ht schoolshould help children to become more employable, allof the families Oh sons thought their ownboys had to seek bettor jobs by going to college. i\1)but six felt the same way :.bout their daughters,

7. Most of the 'IOU respondents believed that over-crov:zr.cdclassrooms was one major rectsrni for ;.1.(101)tillf; the 'If) )5Nan but surprising numbers chose other re;1 st..n: as well,such as saving money (2fi ), improving instruction (A,and saving instruction at costs (o').

C. STU DEN'l

A carefully sole( ted sa/r plc of 73f. p111H1s, grad) s one to :ix,v:as (110scn to it Ltsel;,a for 0:-.1:;eNclokn.. 7 he 501111 le \V.ISStr,irji( fotr 1c51),11 inttilipL`nt 111,01, ittil'11(7:;/1( and

lc-Nol. Fee Appendix E for the k canplete an;klysis. AII pupilsk .:(,1j74 hy Ht :ty,(1 11,rit It (1

V.1011/1 Cadi «11, Sint t 111It'11; ,it e is 7,(1 a diSt'l 1'11 N.Iri,thlt a< arethe oil,or four, 1 (1. and .11/ numl.er v.astalon front ea( II qu.trtilo, 1 his stablh-ia d a tc1,11 of 7(0 c k I

1,1 ;,(1,s. (01 at;, 2,(1,t1, i]1:1} 1. 71,0). ji,r,(..tt,y, s.11,01;.. (1-;(1 11111 IriNt

four in. fire or s i., (I. 11r c (,t21(1 l't .11. 711:1%;1111)n) f.f

Still, a 11 11 «11: Nat on differ( t bcty :eett ioconswer( o (1Hf;-orea. I F. I '1! It tr., if OA

ifi alACCfr.,r lli;',!-;3)];, i/1(1 1- tcf,t! 11111t:d, N(1

Cli-1)1',!,('S gets tar c eltoll'Ah itJly 1' \to insignificance, or vice versa.

The fu11t)int, general coneluiO7n-: he Inrrclt r..»1 the dater:

I. No sign;fica-nt differencos (list assi,:,ng attendance groups.

2. Several sie,nificant differences exist ameng schools.Hence, any lonv-range evaluation rIlliFt take thosedifferences into account. One V'itS tchicost COn-

steilOy lower than the others in grades one throughthree on sub-tests, with the differences reaching the5c/0 level of confidence or better ab011t on-third ofthe tine,

Families more recently moving into the fchool districthave children xvlio achieve at a significantly lower levelthan those who ]lave been in the System fur IVCI or moreyears. Hence, evaluation must also takethis finding into i-tecount.

At the junior high school level, the ;-iclijeveloent of gradeseven only was eNainined. No significant differences xerr: foundamong the attendance groups,

FINANCIAL COSTS

Overview

The Valley View School District Y,q, went into the 5

Plan because the district had e:..nausted its legal limits of i-tssesfedevaluation) in raising taNes for the construction of new buildings, Itis 31(01. 1).",Sjolc to fay what the ultimate limits the taNpayers wouldhave imposed upon lb/int/Ives, c,tcn the legal limit had hecnreached, the district was fore' d to c onsider utile.. alternatives.Dco.,ble Alifts 11:1/1 been tried on a small scale but t,crc disliked Sc,

cchn ators, i'tnd parent!, ahl.c Sonne spite(' vas gained tcm-porarily by Iark class another altr rn.tite not toz.'"Yeac. ft)Ie i', ft Oic form of an c,tenlod f 11,00t1 yea- became in4»aand more aArin tixe, lnitiall1 sating money was not aprilre tnotise f(,r the Only h,t,:r did the fullimplications of Iwssilde s,rvii,gs in /1,11,Ir he«,iot

V, riter:: ot1 yell -round (Tel-at...0ns 1l.ctc t uicc 1 opi]ii(olf,fr1,1/1 1 1 i1115 cif 1',1c,It Fat 111;;F. t1 s 1.1't 11,( nt= that the 1111(.111ji '1/4vaf.

1(1 Fhend meet( ;Hg.ney,, :;«,11 ca:c for a totalax-ings of aline'. t 1 In c entra:t, b ( ount) )

of 1:(1,.:,tion iss.l,t ri a 111)(1,1110'1i( Sayilir. th it ticof their i lan ", , is rot. to sate .1/,/ ir into 1.: w.es, ice

c sp.-1nd / urritull,n: off, rings 11111,1i, :0,1it iri( ('1.c (11!rI tcr(IA'

11

111-11;! (ikiart-1' plan nniHI 0considert'd o1,Iij stk e\-en unrealistic. His figures showed thehi'sI ;,:tvingi iii salaries {-.4 the inst,uctionril Ile as; tartedthat teachers would 111CiVC Iv urn 1 0 ch..y:, of i vt vu e I i L i ?,4 0 with itsalary incIC;C'V of only It seems hi,1lly unlikely that tr,;111i7edteacher groups settle for anything less than a full Notunless almost all of public education were to move to year-roundoperations does it sec.,- lihely that the intructional cost per studentper clay might be reduced by year on Ira

Ter111111010y,y it SC) r may have he:ped delude wniiters into think-ing that year-round contracts would cost less money per child, %%lienthey used the terms "nine -month' and "eleven-month" contracts.Those two s a yare misleading. Most compulsory year-roundplans, especially the goarter-baed models, actually add one:th;rd.more_dlys_of_worh. Teachers will expect to be paid accordingly.

Another factor almost never discussed iii financial projectionsis the effrct that year-round plals viii have on the "PPlY and demandfor to Each school systena adopting some form of it year-roundopei'.ation and offerit L yC it v-i ung contracts reduces the need 'orteachers by one-fourth. Unless a district were expanding very rapidly,as vailcy v3ev,- is, the teaching folic( woald tend to be made up of olderteachers, higher en the salary schedule. Again, a 10/1g ti-endmight counter this because a smaller force might inc rea:-,cithe supply and therchy reduce' sahiry SC)1Cd1iICS. Ill)WeVer, it SCC'r:lsthat organi4ed, teachers will no more let this happen that alit' twelve-month people to work for :C's per month than nine -month people,

liaurnan's other inajor projected savings \yere through reducedcapital outlay (4 L:1, plant operation (1.-1',), and interest on debt(1. Zci,$), appear to be realistic expectation's. Of course, exactprojections would depend on depre(iation .,-;ehednles, !pluming costs,interest rates, and other variables.

Ile assumed minor savinys on textbooks and supplies, (0. 3 i'),insurance r fi'''t costs (0. and transportation (O. I T-).He assumed none for ,-LCiiiiinistration, plant toaintenance, health andfood FCI'vjutS, :Inc: other pro,i,/"-1311,f--,.

1;t500 .lint!ng pro, edart 3 vrcre not u.'n'din earlier year-round 'prop-anis though lots] fiotinisaid( (11 (LN1:,t)nil udlly f,.3(1)

i)\( C oni-hisj,:)15 or (1.)1( Sl1111)()1.111W 11(1c11(

ration nioa: 1 he another sulitic I nitsignifi( ant prisiibility. 1 a \p:',-,,t,rs and t a, tn,ntheir (110;-,r,,I., fir mote 1 n if 11, ,11

dr( (Lint 1.1,111,41 (11c1"..i:t.1:S alli(qii.! 1,, 10' Imo], thanattittittes -way "V,t.!tly . t 'ample, the %eters of tin

Vnli''y Vic v; appro% 111r t It , Alir,w 1,i7(1, "hy

11:11.110 "I Iv'' t(. on.. Inc ti ontra t, lip 111,..j(rii) of 1, I. IA Wit

3

in the Chicago INJelropolit;,n Plll;TSC(1k1CrAte15 01111 \1.:11 bl'tleY V(tf'2. :..Uppoft 1.)). CL11,(o,,f'if:L11/1',',year-round operation:. that they underi.tanel and ,:,re totaxpayer (1(.111a)1,i:.

Special Consideri.iions for N'alley\-iew.

The single major saving l'Or the Valley View School Districtis the postponement of acv.' C0,11sti.tic tion until the e :1.);".i)1(1111', enrollrnent is it1)!,01.1)(,(1 into the classroom space pined by moving to the15-15 Plan.

On Juno 26, 1970, t'ie last day of classoS under the traditionalschool year, there r (. 5, 500 pupils carolled, The district had astaled capacity of 5, 290 so there already existed over-crowding. OnJune 30, 1970, the 5-15 Plan. began. The next day, July 1, 1970,lllinois state law required public schools to offer kindergarten to allfamilies who wanted it for their five year olds (as of December 1 ofthe school year involved). This immediately raised potential enroll-ment by 660, comting each pupil as a half-I.:me equi\ ;dent, sincekindergarten pupils attend half-day sessions. In addition, the pro-jected increase for grades ore through eight was another 600 peryear.

In suminary, the 15-15 Min ine.reascd clasf,raran capacityfront 5, 290 to 7,053, or by 1, 763 spaces. Total enrollment isexpected to tiC about 6, 750 by June, 1971, and qu; l to the 7, 053figure hy September, 1971, This me:.ms, in effect, that the 5-15Plan allowed the school district just it flute more th,tri a year in post-poned construction, So great is enrollment growth. Fortunately,the 45-1,5 Plan will continue to add 011C-third to the C:TL1)71,:ity of newclassroom space when building m111 I. 2.c..,.,mtc. c 11,...1 school iseXpeCtk.ll to be o.,cn by January, 1972, When the actual costs Of con-struction are haray.n, then it will be possible to !_jve it firm ( stimateon the savings to the school district provided by the 15-15 Han,Lacking tin se 14aAres, the following assumptions hate been madeab possible c,avitiw;.

the School i'milding Conn a s sion,View Sc hool Di! tric t is 11,1111).11T a nt.tv v..itlt c aict( ity of1, 125 or tilt. thi Fly five ( F Co:A:lig 5'11a Pi" 5. Arl(lin-, (S'1, 3A)) anti In"\ 3 '.13it (10(1)

mahos a tot of 3')(1. At:',531111ingcast ',51,`10 ttt i:t t Si 00) tt) I,0"., r=102 toyer a tv.enty-)ear p..rnthe aVCrage t v-okild br S101, W.,' per yta

IVill.out 11,e 15.15 this lin;b1;ng wnild hate 1, i1 1,Ck (1, (I

for tl,e 1 grin .1(1( )a: '1 his s It( .tr,t Or I

of ji(a) ly )1,.". 10,11,71 itil tine 1, ?4)(/-1'11111 c n0111.11.1 int lo .1

ti.t rid),, this co: t 3.1 ( ttw tt iit tio;t if: S,)\ (1. If ft,arc 1 a1(111, ont r d 1,,01 III 700), it ;11111.1111.1.,- to

about S t' I er 1..11 x, +Q .11orr:t of ihe

2.6

:3'.

Avid stoyorters f varioti:, yeaf -round !nay bcclppr,inted by cl a -,,in;t11 fuin 11,0wcv,.sev(ol if ii..ickrcd v..cll, iill ;.1 i111!:-., ti

or

,;()J1t33111( to i!C Cc]er;ite. Even ifinterest rates should drop some in the near flatly( , they (er-tainly 1)e r lore than offset by con:,truction-cost increase:, /lenett,reduced construction might S','LVC 11101-C tliT111 j.

Second, equipment maintenance and replacement canreduced through eztreful control. Fer example, if eight bu,.es :erenceded during a nine-nionth year, then ti' probably suffice011 a year-round schedule. Maintenance would be for more 11.0/ailsof the year, but on only six instead of eight vehicles. Of course, thesztvings oii pm chaFing only six instead of ei0,t ly,...sef, might not berealiAed until the need arose, A district wiib Etable enrollmentmight have to wait until existing eytipment wore out.

l'hird, many school districts pay adtninistrative and nlainte-nance personnel the rough the yozor. fl iF unlikely that districtsproportionately increase adininistrative cw.ts if they increased thentmlber rapill, \ ecl \vithout zi number of schoolbuildings wed.

Fourth, some sa\ingt. \ould be realized in reduced need fortextbool, :tnd wher instruetic,nal materials. Instructional materir,lswould be wed one-third more each year and thus fac: mare intense\year and tear. However, leplaceincnt is, also determined ii'; tieout-dating of 111attI'lals.

N'iev: f-,chool 1)isirict antieipates some sz:vings in allfour of these areas, but only eNuerient-e viii show the actual amount,it jS 1(55 Clear iLbtrilt ft. dlrection of tv,a) other (of.ts.

Heating in the winter 'IF \pe11HVC 111 nolt Ciii JIllinlis. 1 hefuel bill for the schools during 1969-70 tit,ticd S10. 291, 67, or anaverage of SG, 71 h. ?.7 iwy In 0.strast, air t onditioncngcurt censidcraldy less to operate, but c.tiital outbt is rt (luire d.

\'Jiili e(1,1 t :h rally 11 be 1(Ins tvu (117.1);1111111C:, ut 111;)' truce 1,',11111 c;1.

the fturtli uf ,1;tderit:, on vat ation ic tot all locatt d in icelocality of the Fl cii ni tiII I. I:ather, eac hro ghdIouJiciCI ill ii)1) l);.t. !-(11(7n11,-,1- I 0,:'11 if licrt t.,

(hi is hot d !v ouc-f lb hiiitin curollioktIt dropped by oc;(-fo,,r1h (ii 1 c1illtii H.t for(3( 11 tool iht d by 01,e- third. Ii ( Eft I, ibis 1,..poi,ds t)Jt i/e if ti by di si Loot. -11,T v

to «,tor f r(in fnrther out an] tlais be !tont. Ill ly elil.,ihtt for 1 iffa( tor oi.iy 1 s iniport.,11 11C, i-11.14,..`

1,11!".ing is alit ;-,y %rid a it tic -oltiei (1,1st.,

All of above coujectu.3Us ha% e be( 11 d i ill tile I;tb)('belr,w OH the left IrLnd .H(1,:, are the acto:,L1 detailcd co: is for onepupil wider nine-mo:nh On the right lia.A1 side arc the pro-jected costs in Valley View when the enrollment has gone u) by onethird, It shotIld be noted that an et-uablished district with relativelystable enrollment might realize no savings whatsoever by movingto year-round tpc'ratTht and maintaining the existing, quality ofinstruction until one ur more years had passed, However, if it wereto c.pand the finality of its education, especially by offering inuredays of instruction, then the project.d savinks could be immediatelyrealized,

One pl,-asant aspect remains, however, for supporters ofextended-year programs. If a !-,ellool district is growing in (-,111. con -ment, and if the debt retirement is great, then a greater savingsper.pupil will be realized as dety,onr,:trated ;v. Table 13. Thus, forthe 1969-70 academic yeti:, the district paid ,,to $'iS perpupil for debt retirement. Spreading that debt retirement over athird more students would reduce t!.c per pupil cost to about $66 fordebt retirement, In summary, the estimated savings net currentexpenditures per pupil would be G. 39 and nn other costs, $?.?. 59,for a total of $32., 98. The percentages would be 1 , 6, 16, 0, and .1, 1 r:o.

Table i 3Per Pupil on 4)f Cclliharisuu

rt.undecl 100)

Valley View 1969-70(Enrollment 5, 580)

PerTotal Pupil

Adininit,tratiOn 20S, 000 $ 37, 27Instruction 2, 8 59, 300 512. 42Health 34, 200 6.13

v....111,y Vic \1, Under45-1 5 Plan (7,110 nrol)nent) I

PerTotal Pupil

$ 238, 0002 $ 31,983, 800, 0003 510. 75

45, 600, 6,13Operation 389, 900 69.87 500 00nI 67. 20aintenancc 34, 100 6. 11 40, 000'

55. 38

Fixed charl;es 163, ZOO 29. 25 217, 600 29. 25Other (Except (mid) 45, 100 8. OS 60, 000 8.06

Net Current $3, 733, 800 $669.11 $1, 901, 2.00 $658. 75)

Transportation 296, 400 53. 12 390, 0006 52.12Debt service 4S8, 100 87. 53 488, 4007, 65. CE,Capital ontlay (766, 000 (1 37. 27) (766, 000)S (1 0?. 96)

-------$ 784, 800 $1.10.65 $ 878, 100 $11

TOTAL. $4, 518, 600 $809. 78 $5, 779, 600 $776.

1

2

3

4

5

8

Assumes enrollment expanded one -third and no inflation.A s:Alinc s t\' ."(1 additi0:111 iadMilliS11ttorS, Ora' 1.011(11p 'WW1 t (10 (t111r1

As: -units some sav;rys ii, -.111;,11 equipn,cnt and nhitc

A s s-unieF

AssumesA t,:-,unles

j;i111101":1 V."011.): less. hours Chn-j11,2, prii:1.)111C 1114. r(1)11/"S 1)111 314)1 lor0i)(1111111111Cly.

F (Inc 1-;1Vii11,f- in eclui1n11cnt 1)111 11115 /111y be 01)111111:1;CNI4'114.1("4.1 (rot this di:fe fen(interest \:0tild d1 o1) n hit C;,4 C 11' a S. 141i114....11);t1 ;1141,

An cxia-nclitui !nit not clia it( bet ,tilf C it ii re fl'. c t«1Cu- (call, cla 1,1 1c nt,

41) 1,

Ili I

1.9

F,. STUD1.,NT

QueSli(r,is V:cYcla;1;(,(1, of pup;1,-. is ,,rade:- .1, 5, and 6, Nosignificant difference:, were found betv:,,:cii _,rade levelr or attenrhinoetracks, Hence, the means of the nin.t(1 ito:ns of the survey aregiven in Table 14, The mca»s Nver tabulated trot', numbers basedon the following wei,,,;hts:

Weight StatementAlways true, happens an of the time

2 Usually tr.ic3 True about half of the time4 Sometimes true

Not true, I never have observedthis happenine or I never do this

Tali( 11M(.ans of Respon:--s of Students in Grades 5, and

Mean Item

2, 1 My teacner makes assil:y,ments that are clearand easy to understand,

3,2 There is less the ec h (d (101n last year,1, 6 1 do my assi,..r.lnent:-; on tinie,4.7 1 am late for class(es),2. 2 I like this4, 3 My teacher Inc to do too work.3, 0 My teacher makes the clas; wort; (,\(3, 0 My teacher picl:s on certain students in the

Clas.,.-,r won'.4,3 Nly teacher is "eralil"4,9 Two or three teachers wort, to,:.ether in th:s

classroom,4, 5 My tet lu i (fitit iii s (complains about) the

45-15 Plan,4.0 My tea( her asks ime what 1 think about the

45-15 Plan,4.0 1 rriale 1.ro2,1',A. test S or dc than

anyb«ty else in this ciass,3,7 I talk more than on)hody else in this (1,)ss.3,8 1 have more ti oublu with my assignments

than anyhedy (Th.( in this (hiss.3. 2 I say good tliiin r about the .15-15 Plan.4.0 1 ft. el unhappy v.Then in t(ln)1.

1 vi:,1: I vere in another \.a( ation

3ti- 30 -

CIJAP*.vER IV

EVAIATATR.);,:.A.T.N1) .R13,.,ARC:111)1;`,-,;JC,N

A. liNTRODUCTIO:

As part of the planning, that the school distHet had given todevelopment of the I5-15 Plan, evaluation problems were care-

fully considered. Ilowever, the funds inade available thfough thisproject provided the extra resources to do the task move efficiently.

11 was immediately apparent that the objectives of evaluationand research might be overlapping, but that they V;VIC! not identical.The problem was made very clear when a priority list was checkedby the school board (seven members), the top administratofs (five),and outs:do experts (fourteen), (See Appendix A, "Priority Conce-;nsCheck List.")

The outside c.n,cultants \\"(' e a group Of persons attending aconference on the .15-.:5 3-1an v:ith the objective of (1.ftcussivir possibleret.,ca,cdi The group made of ten f7tcttlty st;,.teuniversity, three ;ion.] outside of education, The other fear ''eregraduate stuc:t.nts in education,

Table 1.iInfoilliation Judged Essential to Collect

on the 45-15 Plan by 'Hi to Reference Groups

Type ofInformation

Valle) %/icy: Valley View Oat sideSchool Roard Administration 'Experts

4,1. Jobs and c10i1),s ofteachers on ether jobs 3 2 3

19. Industries attracted bet-tuF.eof the school dif.irict 3

Teacher salary schedule «111-pared to offer districts 2 5 0

4. Community recreation. D1r1;.111VI5C1)1("11!. 2 3

5. Absenteeism, 11 uancy, and3 9

6. '101(-l1( fatigot. 2.. 5 9

7, Cw-As of Inriil:t.:n:ince Anil11 p;1 5

of f.iir it rc niovinp1

11, and ;,tHolint of10111,ers r 1

- 3] -

3 t;

Table 11, Infoi :111(1,,ed 1.: ssentia I to Collect, , (co)Iriiwocl)

i',pc oflnforroati,,n]G, Costs of trarn-Toitali On

Valiey VieV: Valley C)at sideSchool Doard Administration per ts

and a.:r conclitioninp,18. Summer al, s entcei sm and

teacher attitudesZ2, 'reacher (+bra( teristicsZ6, Nev, tl'ildier inst rnetional

technique s

30. Total cost per pupil3Z. Characteristics of non-

/teaching staff and schoolbo.,./.0

33, Use of information aboutpupil F by t,,%C1`,C2. 1'S

39, Achievement tests ofalienated .Ind gifted pupil!.

4;, 'readier ,:ffceti\ eness

3. Averagc llumbcr of daysNvorked by teachers

Z4. Teacher demands aseNprssed

50. rw t b,.t..,..cen teachersand a chnini:trator s

4f). Personnel polic icy indistrict

1 Cost per child for teachers,other per so:Eno]

31, class \ 1rintion5

14. Nindr ind 111 of furthertraining

20, Attitudes ( I virents ton rclthe school

I3. s felt by childrend,ring

21. .!-,t1 .14. 1114 vc wen!

52. 1 .un4 I io,1. 1,crfo110 A Is} b ac1,1 Franri t1., 1,,r5

o.ir of sub:511141,0] pl -;;111( 1

32

Z 4 4

Z 4 5

Z 3 3

Z Z ]0Z 4 7

Z 1 1

1. 4 1

Z 3 9

Z 5 4

] 4 1

5

1 3

1 3 3

5

1 3

5

1

2

0 3

0 3

0 1

fable 1 ], 1,1(1).,,itiiin Juch.,c,1 E:-:entia1 to Ciollec , (eon!iHue(1)

Type ofJnfor n);..tion

Valiy V ev. Out. ideSchool : \(11'11111i r l':Npe J S

7, Attituch's of studentstoward 0 2 2

17. What students do clurin,,,vacations 0 1 6

Table 1 shows some of the agreements and disagr s?cinentsby the staff. The tv:o major concern:; of the s,:lioot hoard joie;of teachers and industries attracted) v.-ere not shared by ale experts,but mildly so by the administrators. In a more gen:ral way, (laboard rpernbers showed cc,ncern for the iit,, -ct on the community bythe 45 -15 Plan (items 10, 11, and 1 9). The board showed lessC011CCT11 limo 1,1ir,111 lu 1,er:t(....0 fir the coH,I, of the pro,:.:fZ!in ancl theii-npat upon the teachers, Lul the adilljntrat(Jr (aid this was theirtop concern as shovn in these type S of intros (2, 6, S, 9, 22, 26, 30,32, 3Li, :i, and contraf;t, the o;.it:Hcle cen:;ullantz cNpiessec.1interezt primarily in teacher fatie.e, new inst:.uctien,i1and Iota) curl:.

ills consultanti- in turn e:s.pressed doe ili.erest i 1 soinethat w-ere of 1t.:,1; concern 11) the or the arimi,,iFir;.1..rs,,)otably the three items abeut student rei-ciions--lonelil,c;;;:VaCi,..tion, altitude of students tov..ard a.ncl ,ise of v-o:asientime. Doth zidininistraios and consultant:. slmeci -cone conc.-erns notrated as f I'll* by the school ho;, re, sveh a.. 111:: fur,.tio,ts pyrfor;-!ied bythe teachers ard adnlini.`.tri tors.

110V.('% er, many 71CMS V,V1-(' If (lne el), to all thy&such as abrentisin, teacher fatiwie, totand nev,- instructional technirjues.

findings are not presented as a 1):isis l.. tIc.lerali,.cthese three iy(olii)r, hat tI ilhli.tratn. the dil,inma po:c..(1 for ti,( (\ 11.tiir1

)`11151 e :- e fng the. kritiireit c ontboard and servin,,' v-irier scar(li eoinnten:1-. Si11ee the int( rtthis projn "in the ;r11.1 tn icier anciieilie,comlin..nii-cs Ltd to be ni;:c1,-.

A ItAil IONA 1 I; 1 ill 1: \'Still0()J. DISil RIC]

In order to 1,-nin ;lc-rept:inn( for tine eNaleitiei: siTtilicedthis proj((, 1, a point of v.-is pie:int. ,1 eel 111C in hin of 1111,ty('OH' fr, ),7". -2:1.ed cani:e sunn it (tied t111:

3

The V;,11ey Viev onIii.torical J)ii)\It: ii.cJ v..i.11 la eco.cdcd iii (. ad'Iii!)-

istratiGn te>-.11)ooL.; f,.1" 11/111:, tiioc. Yet, the a I 3)1;tn n.yhe V.',(1nly cii 51< i J S rd fo:'" 1 t tic 1.0 (10 vi liiill( 11'11C merits and shertcomis uf this Lind of yu,r -rotnalschool operation. equally si oN-a I i on v..ould bcto support the ch;tiic,s tr log pL«c in thu Fc]l(d districtNvith a model evaluation proirain. Suliti tclm.iniatratort-;,taxpayers, ancl ,.velc conic pace-setting evalit-zition and -Accountability- efforts. In lac., legialativo bodiesin the United States have moved towT:rci firmer demands thatechicators prove they arc using lay. monie5; cffeetivc.iy,"Accowttability" is a term hoard with groat frecluency.

Hence, it seems highly appropriate for the Valley Viev,,Sellout System to move toy:arc] a good evaluation effort. Notonly doea the profesaion need belle' inormation al,cit heeffectivenet:s of specific educational progr,ons, coursc.s,activities, but must collect the iiifo:mation lifLinethocla that

action by the peopIr ir,vohy,..d. hi is indeed unfor-tunate hat the prevalent attitude ab,-,ut evaluation is that thereal intent is to embarrass or to /ras:.; or to do even v,orsethings to teaehers and adminiatrato:.":, lids fill or appre-hension about evaloation is easily eocurnc»ted, and inuat liethe highest priority concern of anyone who helieveE hi; willcarry on an c,,i.,luation effort. .1 ipprchension is indeedunfortunate because it may delay or good local evaluationworl: and thereby lead to the very thinr,!, it (.."(1)1C:111,3!, a Ye11W-1 C WIC(' riiucl about v;l11111. i Oil imposed by nuts 1'. agincies,The evidence for this eventuality Is ca: to seeco.:-skier the "national a sses inc y(1-11C11/t i(11.(1.1111111CCcontri.Lcts given to private agencies, and "vouel,er'' echumtion(a version of the applied It public elementar'y andsecondary educ all ci)

The beat may to deal with 11 i F .111,3"clic:I...ion it to admitit, discuss it, and thereby put tl.e o.r.-crn jut pci;pirtive.The procedure is c-implc, Admin:ate r a short clachanonymously, talndate ;old (11 50 uss then,.Several types of these (heel: list:: arc ay.,ihible.

there ire other ri ,isons N.-11) N,i1(ii'ttion if- atCarded (lit First, c\.,le ,tion truo!t t!'t:roo...;-11915 that pcop1c arc rc.t11y CrIlvd '1111'1'(' arlp10( icbiits. to fl.C117- ( \ Sill.L1/1111 liars e (MIL :.-;(

\;1111,t1.11), 7/1('1.1)C 71 L'a:,nr( In. at, 1 at tSnrkInnat in 2110Sot, 5cicn s i dttn 1111. i10 ti, it (hi!). oilto Ft ( t.t:(1, r, a Irvin( ip ,l, or a c yr4,fos;;or (an1( Nolkl iIi 5111(1,

1rftIii,:ieo I' 111111 )(1 I Ll7111 1'11 a

111( III 7S 1101 11.51}111( /11 11'(;;F:+1.) C ffc, ti% !

JO 1£ !, ( ,,1;11(ol I,e t,,,,t e,,16;i1 (!rII., till II, I. \,(

- 31

e;ul .:taint t111,( each f..111111. is 1 i 01 :1(1(1( 111 3(7331

ill (ll' (.11' 1,11'111131.r, OF 11-1 3'1 113 nt (,(.1.(1';,1.11.2,,,,1

SyS1"111, \':C" 0k,1',11' 001 v,i1.11 1( !01 (10 V.:I,'

idl'11JS 1%;:11,"1)(''l :Ind 010 1 (Ill t OILY

so ((1)* V1$31 . E 1.("31'

1)1031 i-I.1.1)*(111(')11 111:i iffikkIll, bit{ 101 310 11,i 1.1(. }I) j)trUritiCt]ii/i(1 Say ".0(' 030 C N71111 (1111(: goy's peforniancI, hot 1,111

our c'Avii 1. Any argument 0-1:11S!. 1!tti011 can (;jii ) Le t:(]-.1seriously' %viten we up 1);t1Ild311t; 0,111 to Stilld(*.tS

Third, CVZOIMIiun is (liffiCnit beCall SC V:0 1101

allocated 111'00 sary resources to gC61 010 sit d(.'310 pl' upe_Business and industry- plia;:0 a far larp.r 1,;.1ceit'al..t6 into theequivalent of "non teaching" functions 'than cio in ce111t.3.1ion.

one way, hov...ever, 111(' (WV t: vnivaIionefforts is misleading. Vie chr cisions every day abc.;.11,

the lives of our' 31131(0ll'i 31,:7 our 1rtTrall1F-',.are made 011 the 01 510103 (IVi(1( :11CC, 30)13 0}1 )110;I5practicing sonic, type .if evziluation '1/1(6 proper ClitiCiSIO is1101 to Say do evc)ything hunch, nlyth, or bi butsay that Nye (lo Pot e:<poSe y t,l 11111)di".- VirV: and

i (n the facts ;led infornuitior. do n;.i, credit)il'.0ygap is not ?intik:el to national iii 1)71 1 31.1,;11 ::.;11V,. 11 ,ncn1,It (''Xi Ow (. SSi't,C111, iii 1't.'litt1(,1.1W (..1111c.1

it11(1 3111(111, i'V((.11 101:01101' 31)1(1 pd.:1( 311101 1)(IiVCCJI C.,111(''rand ta.,,:pa)er,,

The foflov.ing criteria are toany evaluatiun 1'14111 ill:: I 11,./011 S(.11 I di Sir it t tIlit1.11s(1(. rta1:e;

Is the pot,o1i (or 1.;roi111) r1 1.. pon5

the (1) t ithuitt((lid ).(..sp1q1,-.3vc the petTlehave ;,bot,1 v;111,,:,. j, rn effort?

T00 ('\ ,1111,1 \'.)11 V.(' -WI to do to tilt' tlitPI ', hilt nut lit 1.'111 Sl S. '1 he or]) v.ay any \ ,L1LI;'11 i(In Cf

501 3 0 ;III any pYriod of little to de, 1 opt antihonestly 03111 that ;-.11)(1 LtS

511/1 S, \%h(71 \ St. I 1: out il*11i.',11,lit'S id)(',11 011 1 i'C1'f(0For this reason the Ininuiti)..121.tioil shills of all ev,iltutt, r 3.1tmore iiiiportant than his t. Ilt only Fil'f.'d5 tI

( 011111:12 .111131 ti hill 11. call upon the 1-%;1.<1

of comp: t1 »«. \lien .1!1 cdc(1, if Le I,.t Is it oh'. It is(.H111/1101 111.11 if :X, call upon

i5-e the 1 aniaii r1 lation .

1s Ii t int, lit of +le ev.111i:ition to provideand iti,,cfol ft..(11 t 1,1

p(' 0 SAV 1) 110V 1 0111.1)1.1 in 3103'3.1.i1 t I 11,1',3 Ii1011S ilit y

;1 rt.( cy111'(1 ,i1p1,11,1 ;1110 Ii t'Vt

1,,,IIIIF111:1111 us?

tl U

T C r i t f . c r .1 1 1 : O j » 1 ; t 1 c t t oni of 0 1 l'

t v,,e cv;t1c,tion0031 be made. "fhere 111c c-AHLI1(1

approach 1.1:1( ,f.1 fOiic, " (\12111»nil.'il'y1)01.'121. Phis iS a1 11.1t1r4 0111. 1)1*]1,111

emot:onally reject evaluation by out)..i(10 l'i,roupn and po',...ers.Mre viev.' it as an 211103111)1 by the outsich.1.1 ; 111,Et1:e 1,16 do w.-Ji;:tthey \vain no to. All the is);ues of freedom, political choice,and r.-:.ponsibility are involved. \V hen applied by thi..; means,it is a reasonable assumption that the 1)..ou purp).-1;.,..., of evalu-ation is lost in the larger issues.

The second approach Ilse:, the psychrlogy implicit inthe saw, "You can lead a horse to water, but you C.0.3.'1 niake

dri01,." We must pre.),ent the issues of CV.Allati011 ill Way.Sthat people willin!;ly will Collect information abort their per-formances and adjust tried behaviors accordingly.

One adage that to say ihr,1 1'I' ',l'._... IF((I be c.).2111tated and not people. NVIttit th,tt atleast one person or more does not his ego tied up in it insonle w.ay. Vccatio.lal education? neadill? Scien( c? Counf.e1-ing and guid0nce? The acla,c, either rcpre5enl0 Stupidity Ofhypocrisy. What is tolerAle ie. ;(., say 111,:t v..e all v..ill hurttogether.

3. Is at least one major hi,,d ddta beini;collected about the 11(14.1'111.,ill(t of (.;11)1gri[111p illV,Hkk'd till' C .J11;1.11(11 effort?

The intent of Criterion 3 Lan be bettor understood bysonic If the 1roi110)1. of ti,(' effortto improve the instruction of S( 11001 N under 111e 14,,1,cof the piin then the print ipal should / olle( t evidenceabout his ovn performan( an(1 (1) nton. tr;it,, tt.;-1( 'hershoN.s. he has used the reFulls of the e\alnation to irnpro% e hisperforioolit C. if 111(' .4-,4 11444,1 14,,.1111 dl'F.1105 1., LI\ )11(1k 1(1uaiiftCA

inStr11(1.1(,)) l'\:1111;411'(1 (11141 (14(0 11't ill101'4(1 to fire of lie :.taffassociated v.ith the pr(Train if the residts Ore not 11p tii (-,pct 1,1"t i o n ) , then H t o c(11e.t 1 ( , 1 1 ) I i its 1,\.,11

pc. 011,11110/1) onunmlity has in the b,2-,rdto lnal:r decisions N...(ation.t1 ((let ation.

4. 11,c 0.1t,1 heir,! «.,1 1,.(1 in a form use-ful to the: 1. the isit.n5: andchanging, performan«.s?

1,\ not r) ,.)r) h. V;hile nimly of th, techni(Inc:, of 1'11('11)111 .11(' flit 171 ( 4Ir( (1,

c;innot 1/2 d for N.,t1,1;,tion i 1,, J l,is is I spec illshue ill t. ihni(11:cf: .4 1.Issify 1!1.4 11!: , and an..1'yd,it.. Sin. I Lt. col 1)- 11311.1red:; of k 1.1.1(1c Illy

A VN tl,)t t rns ab,,t I

4 1.

of e0J1ri.ilencc" 1!11,1 I 4.11.i.'111..

"d.'Ci:C10.11 " 1( II (11';';i71, One y

loohin, e-v.ihrHtion is to view :i it a means to 1,,,,procedeci:-,ic,ns r e inust anyy.ay. Y; )lilt the r-search,.:.ruse highly abstract( d concept:, such as 1.0., the evaluntermust translate the 1,0. into behaViOr \\'(:! can expect ofchildren with Li,,l1 or low ability test scores, NVe can find

"reDding readiness ind,N" but the 1.:.acher need:. towhat specific i»aterials five-year-old Sc s;.111 or John cnn use.

5. Arc all of the f:ndings of the evaluationmade available to the people whosepc rfortiii-.r.cos, arc involved, until theyhave had 1'.111 opportunity to understandthe findings and act upc,n them?

This criterion obviously will be controverSial, at}cast to those primarily interested ",4ettini, thr; good;;"a group of people. Even whon the stalled 11111'1)01'C is 1.0 'Vali]ate a pro, rani, the psychological impact is to indict the peopleassocia;cd the program if the findings app( damning.

The result is, that the people associated with the pro-gram will spend their psychic energies in trying to de -fusethe eVahMli(in rather than to inal;e 1,Le;11,;;;J,11 use of thefindings.

This c riterion (lies not menn that outsider:, shouldnever see the results or be shown that chai,geF, have C.CCurrcd.Mill(' else in( rease the credibility g,tps faster bett,:ceneducator and taxpayer than to hide the findings, WIthholdingthe findinr,;, at best would only temporaril postpone the out-side \ 1011 111111 i111-11:rwif

lint the rod of the e\abiator is clear, Ile is not the11('I 'F011 (1. 10.11)1 1( ly 1111/101111( 0 1./1(' findiftr,s. As soon as III' (1111'1,,

reduces or destroys. Jitry future cffet tiNeness with theIt is, the reSpInsii)ility of the dr. ide hI, when, andin w.hat form to puhli;,11 the results. 11

(",:iltrThq. and the. group Lein,: .; cd is liho 111,-0 betv.«ilawyt r and client. Ally cvalo-tor .",ho refusc s that role mustperceie hinisclf as shifting from t oans,e1,,). to pro: ec tit or,If he v;;i111 tliO latter 1.0/c, then 01;11 1 1- ltis 1'11 1-illCs1-, /IVA heethic ally 111 :-.1 announ, e his 2,,11 A schoolheard v: t'1 1>c. file , V. j0, !** 1r ]!('I( 11 "II I'VC111 in theO.( ( V.1i(111('1 io re1,eV, 11W ( t for a sw, rinterdNt.If tin .y ( mpov;cr soneone olle( t %id( t :11,11

j(,l, lost then 11,c c(Lit s :;$.11:11it,i1 IL Cp.til e 11,. tit to:11110011111 1' the 1,111 /II 1.1 101' III Ili, c llt 1. 1011 f (1,,t,,, thtlpeoplt ',now wh.it 11,e cow s

A 1,1an or Aetiou

The cvalvalion so far carried nut on the .15-15 Pia, t

has be en clistin,,.,nished by these features:

Largely the collection of haseline data (costs,student achievement, cg,intnunityteacher morale, etc, ). Major a 115 WCYE, arcone lu NYC/ yertl S away or more,

Funded larctly by outside agencies interested inquestions not of the same priorities as the sch0J1board and district personnel,

3. Leaves unanswered major evaluation questions thatare of most concern to citil.enS of Valley Viev., SchoolDistrict, such as:

St.ccoss of different kinds of students in thedistrict,F.: :tent and success, of specific pograin:.,such as italividualiAecl instruction,

vAu.ation of individual students (so- calledand report cards) focuses on the succes:-.tes and failures ofstudents, not the system that teaches, thorn. As inentionedearlier, it is " t:tfer" to heel) the evaluation focused on thestudents, hence, a "Han of Action" init:t map (tit activitic:,that will shift focus on ourselves - th1,101t, yet?

The follo\vinp, tequence of a( ti\-ities is recoinittendc(l:

1. (due a "priority check list" to all leachers, pritnipals,and otherS V.110 hili;rk.Cd hi the evaluation,

(h\C Z1I1.4iitthildc tc,\,:ayd f-c ale to thos ttho\;i11 be inw,t iltvoiv..d.

3. "fabulatt., sununariyi' and return the r(sults of thetwo instrunte),ts to personnel of hool1 involved,Result:: of ea( h school arc 11. be 1,:uptEaC11 school is to

a. Sekl t Three )1;1./(1:, of (/.111 to he 5.,',C14:(1(11],one (HI( h of ',Focht( ts of students(otlar t11,-,11 (1.1.t I sun 11 as

\knn ti ft ; l.',1( jr;-,

viti s I II I II d (1611111'n t 1,y)111 I ers tt, t;t At lain

mat, rialf- and prot edge 1, for the!a, r kldr. I

h, Siudy ins,iruHA-nt:, 5S it c red t I e if any.C11,111. S (.1' pri. ;11' LC 111.4(

4o

c, 1.Ysc.uHs ii»plictions Of the of the"attitude

Select a conlinitt,e of four (two teachers, on' sludent,031e Z-t011-1111if,tritt.)1* fl0111 !'l.'11()01) 1() (']'(n)of data,

5. Col?ect dab..

6, Analy4e data and p-i.epare sun-in-la-ries separately fureach school.

7. Meet \vith staff, using a full institute day to discussresults of findings, and to propos.e possible action.

8.

9.

Select one co.. In ore committees to prepare one (A-more chang,-s in the school program in light of thee,,aluatic1 findings,

Select One committee to direct preparation of a publicversion of the evaluation findings,

10. C:onvenc staff at a second all -day institute to discussthe VCC01111C1C31(L.W011 C,f C(.1,11nittce:, VOte on actionsto be tal:en,

The "eluator" wo"10 ci si is I iii "I'""IF' by:

\vilh >r1( to discussplan.

2, l'reparing, "priority check list,"

3, 2.('1111 of "priority Lliecl; list" and"attitude IoNvard evaluation" scale, preparing,stoninaries and interpretation.

eVahla If

4.

5.

V. it)) to tll) 111,131 of

paring net dt iustrun nts,

Worhing with faculty on institute days as an obsCiNer-assist,tot.

7. ' "1,1-

I Si of instrunients,

8 1'r( paring at 1( i,ort undcr the (Iii ci lion of tlJ(loin s v:16(11 p'ii 14,1. iait,)1( atiqi

of findiii;;f".4

3')

The .Lccept,.'d die point of view' iii prinCiple Z111(1ill!',11'11:1cci its' :(11-,13/1..,:i.,.!;3inl the 1>rL,...cclu-sL7. 114,11rn4,,ht implei I('ni the ;II) ( 7,1 l

A W:SI:ARC:II 1)ES.1(

The following outline' was given to the school district in orderto male butte -'r use of available bas eline data for research purposes.Admittedly, not all of the actions would serve immediate local interests,but mw-,t of the results could he fed back through local evaluation pro-cedures

z.

When feasible, collect comparable data from one Ortwo school districts in the Chicano Metropolitanarea that are very similar in make -up. Threetypes of data that are important arc costs, studentachievement, and community support for schools.The data probably can be obtained with relative ease,The same instruments should be used when practic;,1.

Repeat all local data collectio,) at least 071CC eflchyear as ;i means of monitoring the ellant.Ts oecurrinwithin the district. The data would inchl ty;)escollected thou,,,11 this project.

3. 1\1.i1to all data available (subject to Valley \'ie\s. restrie-tions as judged necessary for the school board 55(1 theadministrators) for additional analyses by outsideFrolips; or indi\

Mold seminars for intcresz..(1 persons; and institutio.ls%vho can review. the cht;!, sugl;est ii,clrrover.ients, iii1)1'0( CChl es, reed 111akc int( tn(1 C(.11t1l1;,i(,.11:;.

'1

CI1APTE1l V

CONCLUSIONS AND RE(JW..17\11-;NDAT1ON:;

A. TIZOMIC.FION

Whih- post -test dzit;... is not yt ilanal)le On the V;Iney45-15 PL1n, the bzIscline information zippe.rirs to warr;Intconclos-:on;;;

1. One -lb; rd more classroom space Cali Ire madcavailabh through the 15-15 man.

Iinincdi;tte :.aviii12,q (up to 5^: per pupil) can begained under these

a. Enronnient is risin rapidly;

Debt 2..tire,-rient is high per pupil.

3. Ethicational benrfit iinmecliaiely ( Jut. ifor double -shifting is pre\ cnted.

One or inure unl:nown but unicine clement: ;1(-eoLiin,for the rotroclut-tion of the .15-15 Man aS innov.t

because many other clit:tricts s:unilar.erns of crov-ding, none yet have l (.2 C

On a 11111- ye a. r operation as brt;.; ViiIl yhypothcr.is slq!rt,,tc(I for is th.lt

in the person:.litier. cif the Lordnleinber:, and administrators.

(Lno-nunity ein, be won o,,er to 111( sltprort ofshort v:o-zttions at four different tinle, Cloring the)'car they learn how to a =c tI e tninc. 1 Lc:-epeople i ico t r ti (inJ y obie( tint; are r,ciiel allycritical of the ; (.11.,01 t y. len),

Student 1-.( the tou,,,,1,e:-1admin':tri-.tiveprobleni !OVA u. r, if a ":,yi-t,unIS'..

j S. cd and a c od orgmiierii con hc done in tv:o or 1//1-cc. Inf.;/t/15. and on a Y,:d..,Of al), olt one / pr. r '1 ," C,.

pik,1)1( to (

a. e of 111111%;(111:idi /cd instrk'it tior;

1.1ti;t: curt no.( ttf

7. t 1(.;-o bent )( t if rivchthe (y)0r11:101 ) t (*;o

4u

8, Evalt,;,tio), V.1(-) IS )1,1)11"t31

reettion can 14'10r1 fur 1/1C

9. rt.',,L.;tIcli objectives can lie moreif 331,C(111)),,Iith..(1 ufonlia,tivc." cvidwitio/E, iii<;

mean!, Inat the paol)le ol nis!t ',payfro», the evaluat .3,41 activitios,

108 7'eadir2Yr.;1.)'(' Is try a year -roundoperation, e:Tecially if ;;iven lilt opticQl on the len:rohof th,rir 110\:e they sic1

of roof:, of the claims indcie for }-ear -round iscq;ran'tsprim to any actual expriein c it,

The move to a year-round oper:tion vans strongsupport froir ecorlomy-rnindcd tavo)cr:r., v..;Lich -

(08 group:;, )lovrevcr, a nii-jorily of parents arcmore eon( ernid ;0)0,11 the Cdt1C;-tlit.1151 OM( tooi.5.; ofthe in.c...d.an1,

The above IeNen succinct conclusions are larl,ely cell-expl;inatory, so n: conuneut v:ould holp on tv,o of them,Student chedulinl., is, made cr,sicr with non. v,racled pr(Tra.ins be( awestudent c.rn conic and f,o if the in:Iruction is truly inclividualiied,Also, largerJr enrolln ents tend to reduce ehonce inbalani es, OnNumber 8, relations con.Quicau. evpluator.,, aft( »lion is c.,lled1.0 11)(' (\ 11;,\

re se:Ircherf, initht lac ;11)1:: to by v.-itliout'lliem,

2ZI:(70.:,..1;\11:N.1)A`1 IONS 1'()';', VA 1.I.1 Y

The s(11()1 distric t fhould cont::nue to Collcct andcport monitorin,z cl,kta both as a soviet to it ..11-

and to the

A c :hot tc: h, madt by the dir.trict for all Oa tasuliplied tc rro,.ps or incli a:- a meansrcco\-er l,-tt:;;,.11y the clot -3

`1 he t.\poricncc: tk;tilic tle el(1)z.:111.!

tlic 15 -15 tir616 l,e tr;,,n,lated into a traini:11.7for szie dIsIr]bution "fhis w,ubl l c f;ir

fir thin for31.11rk.i.ort!, stic h as thi;-:

:h,)ulcl lie ,,,ouc.id iron) al.enciLs for tlapul-p.):1. of or,tinninr, bet k

111)1)01.::111,- of 1:11111,

4

C. Ce)i\TET.,Ipi A Ti.\(;,A S1AG(i111:1;;J), YEAP,-);OU.::1);-;CII001,OPLIIATIC)`:

Alloy; oneyk:Li for plzuwin;,.

Establi;dt po:itio-, cliector, tr,ive him(Ti ye;11. to do the and p.ro\-icht it buclet ofthie to Live dollar per pupil,

3, l'repare a calendar early ait(1 haNe the school boardadopt it earl),

4, Invol\-e the con-1;11111151y in ;111v.'orin; just questio»,Thal cluc:-,Ii(») is, "V :hot Nvoulc1 you do i Inci v,h;ct wouldyou reconin)nd for us if tin district i]:crc it;cd

;:iwee by one-third?" All either ,111cftio.lisbe aiv-N:4rcd by cliHtri4r t personnel,

5, Discover the cjilestiL,ns by different local gr(olp: th;Ltcitn»ot he easily aw,v..ered ;Ind cal ,blirh ;u1 cv;lluation

a)1!-V,'Cr thee» V.'1111i!I 17111:"1.S.

See]: out the person \vith the f;tronl!est objections,to hit», ans\ver Lis eiklest5on, anelbut proceed v..ith the 1,1-.0.11inli; to the I"11),'1of the too.-1 pot-,,itive people,

7, Ans..er all cfaef.tio71:, by ;:11 people carefully arc]patiently, ;01(1 OV alld (, (r.

8, Give teacher:- as it h freedom as loo: rible in ;cluctil,1the len1.01-, of their c,.nlra<

9. Give arh print ivd Ire cdo», to bui],! t) pc of :-t;-,.ffr..11eclule he cle;.ires in his

1;ncou1',1!:(L use of non-1',r.:(14-(1 int.troe-tion ;71 111(,it/1F, 1,0 S01%.0 5,10(ilY11 probleinsam', to ;.dy,-,44ree tLe of nett. r cdnuot;o:1,

)(I pl'ep:red Io clo most of tilt hid worls of p171n11;)p,,.. buttof the re( (,;.,.n':tion to the Ica( her: ;.i) d

ILk roll) :1.:41' I t, 1:( y V:11) dt the 11o1j11/1C11

IA' .1101.V1 010;1011,!,11i0;15, a re t 111 1 t ;)1(1 itr.111h.:(1. ]}icyt01111'lit;1,:ri 1.1:1,. Y., 1, Ote j1;111,,r -

1O1. 1)C done 17,-t Inol 4. lip P. 10ni., I I, Att, 1-11 ',onthe ;11 ( of 1/10 11 t oreflo aF,Fol ,!t it;,: I rt

I

4')43 -

1 ;1)1(iic!).%ft 11\ nier,S(11!...(1k1h..,

Cnty (R-111),.1.1t1r,

Schc,c»fyld, (:):,?cnc(. A., :tn(lNk.il cIinii1v, Yc;tr-1:oln).:11).ro1,!...1115 cis fl

i)c,t0);11.17,A11.,tio.ral1961.

3 II., I:S1 Concept:and in-,t3Ileiic,n;i1 Ct.wich. " Post-(f.c,nrcrc-ncc...3t:. p_03-1)r.Nicn(lt (.1 S5'11()(1 Ycar C(Pferl'Ilt:C. 1)iV3S1011 (if Curriculuniand Infiruct;w1, Stotkl'Iorj17;1, \15-f y, 1969.

1\lacN.cxen, It. 11'. , "EcIncatiiqvil Vou.... her "Nov)-.)lc r, 1970.

5 M., 4'Aficr. Tex:,]1;;:ii;.., What? At couT,tal,nityand P,:.rf;,rilnirice (:ontr;,(1:-, " Schop12-,., Deckmber,1969.

ro,s, cd 11:tclic;i School 1.efwirp, Simon zincl5c-hu:,tcr, y ici().

7 ci I, CI-c+r;:k 1\1., "rdmatio.)',.; Cuff cc "r)i.t(,),( r, 10(.1,

S '1110. (,1"

1Yarhino(l, I), C.,

9 Farl'illtd, VI. Ia. ;i71(1 V, Cr S in, " Yvarin " ticliy.y1;.nd April 10, 19;6.

10 I hc /111:Yt.;ty_S(11 liiIil ;tiAlyNu. .1, Cre(.1.1.c. 'J'ua Ia ra, N:t;11\11',TC311.CS:,co', 1931.

11 Vi,n(1('Iz c, 11. iz ''Ii\ ENi-'ricAlt ( \':',1)1 11,r .\11'ear Si laul, ' our, 1,1, k.7.11,cr,

I

13 IF. 1' 1.(,tt-11t1.-? 1Z( t 1111a1 1 forp:, itii l N:na 1,..(,-,.tli\;11,

1969,

11 , and 11(,1A. it 11}1),,

I

41,)

E.,.11:i1111:(1 11 tiCft, S11,(1) PLintMVO',

cd" ,

B:tilloi!», 1V, $-c ii,(:clittr, C:(1)(-( of )11::inc::.. Adini)13.;ttion,Tolvdo, Tolt,..dt,, Ohio,

FulIon Sul:-.ol!. Your ()11:.).1L'a J)Ltn, Fulton CountJ(1cil i on, AtIJInt;t, (icorija, 1)(.9.

APPENDIX A

INSTRUMENTS USED IN STUDY

Questionnaire for Teacher:

Questionnaire for Cominunily People

Interview Protocol

Priority Concerns Chea. List

cebac k un Into rvie

1N11I. 1)110ITSSJON,`tI. EVAll A-110NBefore the Grand Opening

of the 45-15 Plan

May 15, 1970

l)ear Profesional:Our school district will soon embark on one of

the most notable innovations in American education. We have talkeda lot, phtnned in great detail, anticipated many problems, and,hopefully, will be ready with all of the answers.

However, we would like to ha VC a comprehensiveevaluation of all that we have dent: so far before the plan is actuallyunderway. You can help by giving as rigorous a rating as pos;;ibleof each featvre of the 15-15 Plan and the planning activities.

Please give a rating to each item below accordingto the following scale:

1 = Heartily Agree2 = Wildly Agree3 1)01)'t 1:310\S' ed reaC ti S

4 = Mildly Disagree5 Strongly L)isa{,re

1, The length of my contract for next year is just right.(If iliE:,atisficd, is it t(10 101111, Or too short

The tr-.1t(s) 1 will be \()1.1-ttit'J \vith i-(arc) the one(s)Zi fl tip (1.

3. My :glary per_ menth for next year (i.e., ii.nore thelentllt of your contra( t) is ex«-llent (onip-tred tosalaries of surroundint., c1 tric t.

4. Cooperative teaching tez.ins arc- a fine arrany.eincnt,NVIntt is the printe reason for giving, the ritting thatyou do? _

G.

The tick your (AVIi children are on is the hei=t for yourfamily (if )ou 11.-t\t. children in school).

0111 rt I ,',11)1: of tLc. 5- is .tt.e(1,

atiitude_ ttA.,trd the 15-15 }'lac is goctl.

Your v:n ti ;uric t,w.ttd the .11)- 15 l'ht n ir.

47

The planniin,, doile 6y the administrative stHl oilier themyour principal has been good.

10. Teachers \\To will be working more than the customary)8 (1"Y!' within zi twelve-n-1"th period "i11 h='"'iii(' tiredand word out.

Students will do better (.11 yearly achievement testsbecause of several sl.ort vacations instead of one longsummer vacation,

Families will get uscd to several short vacations andmost will g'ye mild or strung support after one year,

13. The families in Traci, A will be the most negativetoward the 45-15 Plan because they have to stzirt first,

14. A completel) individualized instruction pro,,2,rain ismuch easier under the -15-15 Plan. (1r,nore spccialeducation cla s t.e

15. If the 45-15 Plan lasts for five years, then a higherprop.lrtion of men teachers will be employed in thedistrict,

_16. Elementary education should have more men teachersthan presently.

17, It ill be much harder t. teach under the 45-15 Plan.Please list the teasons for your mating.

18

a.

c.

Otber community agencies and pregr,Ims, such ar p7i.rkand recreition, churli, and ;,uniiner c amp, will quichlyadjust with little complaint to thc 45-15 Plaza,

19 Absenteeism much higher during ill( slimmermonths.

20. \:111 but 4.71le 111(Pre pot.ltiv( in ;1!1)tr,(1( s t4,,v,11(1

21 PA1 rJe hint e and ma ji rep-1i costa I_1 i tn nthpor building will

Jv- 4 8 -

214 Seine fain:iliet; v.-ill move out of the school di: lrictbe( au::c of the I5-1, 11;,11.

23. Some will move into the sclu,o3 di sir etbecau!;c of the .1,-15 Plan.

21. 11011 or inore of the children \vill return to the schoolsdurini; their vacation:; at least once 0 w-ech if they arcaPowecl to use pz-rticip:Ate in extra-curricularacI:\itic! and join field trip::.

25 hiser ice training is needed if the 15-15 Plan is to wort:

26. Tbc '15-15 Plan will still be in alteration five year" f3.'11110W.

27, Parental attitudi 5, on the atcra , Will ml 1)1' oVe %yardthe district under the 15-15 Plan,

__..28. Teacher tirr.ove:r v.il1 he reduced.

29. Incliidniali/xd instruction will be used by most er allteachers, f.;rades E-6, in at least two subjects by 197-1in District 06,

Ls...ill be greater variation in the sires Of e);11-,1-12S1111(.1(.'1' the 45-15 Plan,

31. Administrativk cost:, per child will 10' 1.1i) under the45-15 Plan coin :,red to sir,ilal district of e] ,tini.under a traditional nine-month schedule.

32, Student-teacher-parent conferences will increase underthe .15-15 Plan.

33. Costs of instructional inatri.tls ;.nd ecluipment perchild pC'r year will inrrC0 1'.

34. costs (d(bt reti:-einent) 1--r child dov, nthe -15-15 Plan.

35. Tea, hers will inal:e bss use cf cumulative foldersunder the -15-15 M.o.,.

36 Studentf. v:11 do less lionvborl: uler the -15-15 Plan,

37. 1)ntri(I 196 %%i11 11:1/Lai Uti021 in the ro N.1

3';. 'Ica( Ill effr, tlt rl rSr till de f'( (11.111)V, 11,C' 1,1' \I1\ VC.trt, under the Phin,

39. 'fiv:t between teachers and students in District ;:96iliCreat;t in OW noN1 two yo;i2"5.

40. Trust bykveen teacher:, zfild administrators inif96 \\i 11 increase in the nest i year:, .

41. Npayer: withunt children will feel more pc)sitivetoward strict i'96 in the ne..,:t five years.

42, All in all, the 45-15 Plan is the most e.:citi)y, educa-tional innovalion I have ever participated in,

43. 1 teach or work at itrZtde )evol(f.)

44. I am am not a member of a coolJerative teorn.

45. 1 Pro a teacher adr.:;nicir-ttorpara-profest-ional or .1'de other proles ,ion;-.,1

46. I am 0 man woman

47. My a,,c is: 20-24 25-29 30-34 ._..__35-39 40-44 45-19

50--

48. 1 predict that I will will not be worl:ing inDistrict i'96 tw..(5 yeOrs from 11(,\:.

rJO50

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONINIt.i..\;IT in.-.01)1,1'

Summer, 1970

1)ear Parents:

1SaF;ed on your kiioNvleclge zinc] the experiences you b:vehacl so fi:r Nvith the Valley N'ic%. School District, please rate thefollo\ving features of tile school system.

5 = 11:'.celtent4 Good3 ---- Ave r a c.c.2 Poor1 Very poor0 No ()pinion, (10 not know,

R a t_:1111

1. Bus schedules

2. 'feachers in the elementary schools

3. Teachers in the Juniur Iligh School

4. 1nstructional materials

5. Elementary buildings,

Buildin;.4 of Wt. st Vier, J1.111:,1' MI* School

7. School princ s

8. }:xtra srvi«.s such as libr:try and !iec educ.,.tion(-lasses

9. Effi( ient use of t.ry money

10, it.ccivc(1 alp Alt the i Plan

11. NVortl. of the Valley View- 15,-15 l'htn

I?. Will you h:'.( children enrll( (1 in itl-er the V,Alley Viewirentiry sc hurls or tl.c .1un;or hoot L';-11'?

Ye:;

13. NVill you chaiv,,e your tea] vactt;on plans hecalit;e of thc45-15 1)1an?

Yes No 1)on't inev

"Ye::," how?. - . -

14. Can you thin!: (1 anythin,,,, that wo.ald chant, yoo prc enlopinion .about the 45-15 Plan?

Yes No

If '' Yes," what might it be?

15. Do any members of your fall-lily Et1.)111y will, youabout the worth of the 15-15 Plan?

Yes No Don't loiow

16. What do you think were tle major reason; for the SchoolBoard adoptin!.; the 15-15 Plan? (Check one or 1/10re. 1.

Save building costs

Save instructional costs

Save administrative costs

Save heatirq; costs

(5) Improve in,truetion

(6) Rai: e yearly salaries of teaci,ers who v..11work tv:e1 c months

(i) Jiing more nn teachers into the t

(8) Hell, f;trn:.lies to hay( vac ations in all seasons ofthe yeo r

(9) ()\&r 0. dell CI 5 I (10:11::

(10) Other: . _17. 1%.111(1 von (if tic sthLtc 1.1v: r_, to alloy. it) Vt'il`

f; I ;\t;(1 ti.c E.)- 110!1?

YeF- I), or'l I lir \- -

18. Do you believe that the 45-15 Plan will actua3ly save moneyfor the district?

Yes No Don't know

19. Are you in favor of more men teachers in the elementaryschools?

Yes No Don't know

20. If evaluation shows that students lea] i more under the 45-15Plan but no money is saved, would you then support the Plan?

Yes No Don't know

21. If the 45-15 Plan were to save 5% on educational costs butthe students were not to learn any more than under thetraditional school year, would you then support the Plan?

Yes No Don't know

22. Are you aware of any special problems your children have inschool now?

Yes No Have no children inschool now

33. What occupation(s) do you hope your oldest child (whether ornot he or she is in school) will go into?

24. Is there another person (not an educator) in the communitywhom you trust and who knows of the disadvantages as well asthe advantages of the 45-15 Plan (one who is well-informed)?

Yes No

If you have no objection, would you give the person's name andaddress so that he could be asked if he would grant an inter-view about the 45-15 Plan:

(Name) (Address)

(Telephone number, if known)

25. If your answer was "Yes" on Question 24, have you talkedpersonally to this person? Yes No

26. How many years have you lived in the community?

5;53

27. Who are you?

MotherFatherBoth Mother and FatherOthe r

28, Would you be willing to be interviewed by an outside inter-viewer (someone not living in the community but paid forby the local school district) every six months about yourratings of the 45-15 Plan and your reasons for the ratings?

Yes No

If "Yes, " then please give your name and address below:

(Name) (Addre ss)

(Telephone)

COMMENTS:

59- 54

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Ask permission to tape-record, If refused, put down nearlyverbatim responses but not entirely so, Do a minimum ofediting, Tell them, if asked, that only people at the universityunder the personal direction of the project director will listento the tape, No one in the district will know who said what,We will prepare summaries only for the school staff to use,

2. DO NOT look at the questionnaires before talking to the parents,You should not know whether they came out of the high or lowgroup, thongh you may guess correctly after talking to them,

3, Use the questions as leading questions. Seek all possibleelaboration when they in any way indicate they have moreto say,

4, Use a separate tape cartridge for each interview, puttingthe code number only on the cartridge and date of interview,

5. Each of the questions must be asked even if it seems likeit has already been asked,

Interview both parents together when possible, even if onlyone parent's name is on the test, However, don't postponean interview because one parent is absent, Do tell themwhen calling that you would like to have both parents thereif convenient for them, Record divergent or apparentlyirrelevant answers when given,

6055

1. What group are you in? ABCDWill(do) you have any children in school this coining year?

Yes No

If so, what are their names, ages, and schools they areattending?

Name Age School

3. Please describe your vacations for the family during the last,two years (length, frequency, at home or away). I -low long,when, where, who went, what kinds of activities, etc. Thisquestion is vital for the survey. (Get as specific informationas possible.)

4. Can you say now what changes you think you must make inyour vacation plans because of the 45-15 Plan?

5. What overall rating would you give to the Valley View SchoolDistrict (not the high school district) -- ignoring the 45-15Plan? /

(Excellent) (Good) (Average) (Poor) (Very poor)

6. Out of this list (hand them a card with items on it). pick outthe two items you would give the lowest rating on.

61- 56

7. Please pick the two best items,

8. Do you know any of the school board members personally?

Yes No

9. Have you ever talked to any of the school board members aboutthe 45-15 Plan?

Yes No

If "No, " would you like to? If "Yes, " how long ago?

10, Have you ever talked to a principal or a teacher about the45-15 Plan?

Yes No

If "No, " would you like to? If ' Yes, " how long ago?

Did you attend any of the meetings about the 45-15 Plan?

11, Have you ever talked to any of your neighbors about the 45-15Plan?

Yes No

If "Yes, " has this helped you form an opinion?

In what way?

12. Do you read most or all of the news articles on the 45-15 Plan?

Yes No

13. On the :everse side of the card is a list of common questionsparents and taxpayers have asked about the 45-15 Plan.Are any of those questions still unanswered in your mind?

62- 57

14. From what you now know about the 45-15 P/an, what is youropinion of the Plan?

(Excellent) (Good) (Average) (Poor) (Very poor)

15. Do you believe that the 45-15 Plan will actually save moneyfor the district?

Why?

16. If achievement tests show that students learn more under the45-15 Plan, but no money is saved, would you then supportthe Plan?

17. If the 45-15 Plan were to save 5% on total costs to the schooldistrict but achievement tests showed that the students learnedthe same amount as under the traditional school year, wouldyou then support the Plan?

18. Do your children have any special problems in school now?(Ask even if all are in parochial school.)

Is the school district doing anything to help your children withthese problems?

19. What is the best thing you can think of that the schools coulddo for (your*) children?)1,4: Omit word it person has no children of his own.

Are they doing it?

20. Should schools help all children to get better ;:obs?

s3- 58 -

21. Do you want any of your children to go to college?

If "Yes," do you think the Valley View School District has agood program for this purpose?

22. How long have you lived in this community?

23. Did the reputation of the schools in any way influence yourdecision to come?

24. Are there any reasons you can think of why you might leavethis area in the next two years?

25. Has (will) the 45-15 Plan caused(cause) any change in yourhouseh.)1d budget for items such as clothing, spending money,baby sitting, or food?

26. Will the 45-15 Plan change the times that friends and relativeswill visit your family? Yes No

11 "Yes, " in what way?

27, Do you know personally of any family who has moved into thedistrict or moved out because of the 45 -] 5 Plan?

Yes No

28, Do you know personally of any family wim will place theirchildren into or take them out of parochial schools becauseof the 45-15 Plan?

Yes No

59

29, no y.riu have any other comments about the school districtor the 45-15 Plan?

30, Here is a rating sheet for you to tell the University of Illinoiswhether I did a good job in my interview, If you have noobjections, would you fill in the rating sheet after 1 leaveand drop it in the mail, [See Page 0,1

65( 60

What are the best and worst feiltures of the Valley View District 1196?

(Check two of each):

1. Teaching of arithmetic2. Textbooks for arithmetic3, Teaching of reading4, Books for pupils to read5. Teaching of science6. Materials for science instruction7. Teaching of social studies, including history8. Materials for social studies instruction9, Special education classes

10, Teachers for elementary classes11. Teachers for the Junior High School classes12. Music instruction13. Art instruction14, Recreational programs15. Libraries16. Bus schedule for last year17. Bus schedule for next year18. School(s) your child(ren)vsas(were) assi_g_ned to last year19. School(s) your children) is(are) assig_ned to this year just underway20. Group (A, B. C, or D) your family has been assigned to21. School principals22. Policies of school board on how tax money is used23, Amount of taxes paid to the school district24, Information received from school officials25. The Valley Vicw 45-15 Plan26, Other

6G- 61

Typical Questions Asked by FamiliesAbout the 45-15 Plan

1. Can we change the group we are assigned to? If se, whatis the procedure.

Z. Why must some students be assigned to schools n t nearestto their homes?

3. What happens if children go on vacations with their familieswhen they should be in school?

4. When will the air conditioning be brought to a state ofsatisfaction?

5. Will teaching for twelve months a year be tiring for theteachers?

6. Will the children be taught the same materials as duringthe traditional year?

7. How much will the children learn?

8. How such money will be saved for the district on one year?

9. What will happen to children when they move to anotherdistrict or enter high school?

10. What are we to do during each of the fifteen-day vacations?

67-62

CHECK L1ST OFPRIORITY CONCERNS

The Valley View 45-15 Plan will soon go into operation.Many kinds of changes could happen. However, it will not be poss-ible to find out about every possible change. Time and resourceswill be too limited.

Below are listed many kinds of information that could becollected about changes. Please go through the list and circle eachitem that you believe is essential information to collect- -so essentialthat some local district funds ought to be used to obtain the ix:forma-tion, if no other way can be found to carry out the evaluation.

CHANGES IN: 1. Number, length, and types of vacations thatfamilies take each year.

2. Average salary paid to teachers and othersfor 180 days of employment as compared toother schools in the are..

3. Average number of dayv each teacher worksduring one calendar year.

4. Recreation and amusement programs in theceinmunity.

5. Absenteeism, truancy, and juvenile delin-quency.

6. Behavior of teachers (e.g., irritableness,emotional outbursts, fairness, etc.), basedon judgments of students.

7. Attitudes of students toward school, basedon self-reports (e.g., questionnaires).

8. Costs of building maintenance and majorrepairs.

9. Community church programs.10. Kinds of families moving into and out of the

community.11. Kinds of work and amount of time worked

by mothers.12. Cost per chi1,1 for teachers and other

per scrawl.13. Loneliness felt by children during vacation

periods.14. Kinds and amounts of further training chosen

by teachers and administrators.15. Friends chosen by students.

- 63 -

16. Cost of school transportation and airconditioning.

17. What students do during vacation periods,18. Summer-month attitudes of students and

teachers, including amounts of absenteeism.19. Industries attracted to the school district.20. Attitudes of parents toward the schools,

based on intervieAvs.21, student achievement tests,22. Changes in teacher characteristics, such

sex, age, and background.23, Parent involvement in school activities.24, Teacher demands as expressed in teacher

school board .negotiations.25, Costs of building construction.26, New instructional techniques used by teachers.27, Trust of parents in the work of the teachers.28, Career interests of students.29, Willingness of taxpayers to provide financial

support to the schools.30, Cost of total program (per student) as com-

pared to state-wide figuies for various kindsof districts.

31, Size of classes, and variations in size.32, Characteristics of the school administrators

and school board members (length of service,sex, occupation, etc.).

as

33, Costs of teacher substitutes, classroomand other supportive personnel services,

34, Student-teacher -parent conferences,35, Student sensitivity to future social problems

(e, g., pollution, population explosion, etc.)and commitment to solve them,

36. Costs of instructional materials and equip-ment.

37, Friendships among children and amongfamilies,

38. Use of cumulative folders and otl-er informa-tion on students by teachers and others.

39. Achievement test scores by drop-out-proneand highly gifted children.

- 64 -

69

40. Homework done by students.41. Tasks assumed by children in the home.4Z. Student creativeness in solving proLilems.43. Student social maturity.44. Jobs and earnings of teachers outside of their

teaching job in the district.45. Personnel policies in the district.46. Perceptions of the district by the state

education department, universities, andother schco). districts.

47. Student make-up of classes (sex, age, testscores, etc.).

48. Teacher effectiveness based on outsideobservers,

49. Trust between teachers and students.50. Trust between teachers and administrators.51. Patterns of friendship among the teachers.52. Actual functions performed by teachers and

administrators.53. Kinds of criticisms that taxpayers without

children make of the school district.54. Kinds of criticisms that parents make of the

school district.

ARE THERE OTHER KINDS OF INFORMATION YOU THINKIMPORTANT TO COLLECT?

70- 65

FEEDBACK ON INTERVIEWERS

Summer, 1970

Dear Parent and/or Taxpayer:

Thank you most sincerely for helping out withour interview survey. You are providing a vcry valuable serviceto the school district.

You can help us even further by evaluating theeffectiveness of our interviewer. If he is making any mistakes,you can help him correct them. IF he is doing a fine job, thenhe will be happy to hear that too.

A self-addressed, stamped envelope is urovidedfor your convenience.

Enclosuke

71- 66

Sincerely,

William M. RoggeProject DirectorEvaluation of the 45-15 Plan

I

Dear Professor Rogge:

We were interviewed by Mr.

July 1970

Here is our rating of his work:

Was he on time with his appointment?

Did he answer all of your questions?if not, what did he fail to answer?

3. Was he friendly and polite?

Did he say or do anything that made you uncoinfoltable?

Do you trust him?

6, Did he ask any questions that you thought inappropriate?

7. Are there any questions he should have asked but did not?

8. Would you like to have him at your next interview session(which probably will be early in 1971)?

9. Comments:

72- 67 -

APPENDIX B

THE VALLEY VIEW 45-15CONTINUOUS SCHOOL YEAR PLAN

73- G8 -

Valley View District li96Research and Development OfficeDalhart AvenueLockport, Illinois 60441(185) 838 -7981

The Valley View 45-15 Continuous School Year Plan is amethod of assigning pupils, building facilities, and staff members.By more efficient use of the physical plant, by a more extensive useof the personnel, and by a more equal distribution of pupil classattendance throughout the year, the school distrct anticipates asavings in building construction costs, a longer working year forsome certified and non-certified employee: (with correspondingincreases in income), and quality educatior for the student body.

The Plan is educationally sound, financially desirable, andlegally possible. This Plan was developed in District #96 and shouldnot be confused with other scheduling systems.

1. Saturdays and Sundays, all Illinois legal holidays, aweek at Christmas, a week at Easter, and a period offive to nine class days in July (as an adjusting period)are designated as school closing times. A five-yearcalendar has been prepared to insure that the pupilschedules are in logical segments. When classes arenot in session, however, the buildings could be openfor maintenance, athletic events, community activities,and library service. All provisions of the Illinois"Monday Holiday Bill" are observed.

2. All District #96 pupils are placed in one of four groups(A, B, C, or D), according to the small neighborhood inwhich they live. Unless the parents request differently,all children in the same family are placed on the sameattendance schedule, even though the children may be atdiffere7. grade levels or at different buildings. The fourgroups always stay in the same order of rotation.

Enrollment has increased at an exceptionally rapid rate andwill continue to do so. Electronic data-processing facilities arenecessary to the scheduling process.

3. On June 24, 1970, the teachers and staff members forGroup A began a four-day Teacher Institute. On June 30,1970, the pupils in Group A began classes. These pupilsattended school for 45 class days then had a fifteen-classday vacation. Four cycles of attendance such as thisgives the pupil 180 class days per echool year and percalendar year.

4. Group B staff members had a four-day institute inunedi-ately prior to the beginning of classes for Group B.Group B pupils began classes on July 21, 1970, whichwas fifteen class days after Group A began.

5. Group C staff members had a four-day institute afterwhich Group C pupils began classes on August 11, 1970.At th,s time, three of the four groups of pupils were inschool and one group was on vacation.

6. After pupils in Group A finished 45 class days of school-ing and began a fifteen-class day vacation, the pupils inGroup D began classes utilizing the classrooms and (insome cases) the teachers that were used by the Group Apupils. Group A pupils returned to replace Group Bpupils; Group B pupils replaced Group C pupils; Group Cpupils replaced Group D pupils, etc.

7. The families in the community were scheduled first. Theteachers and ciassrooms were scheduled to match thepupils for grade level and department (in the junior high).

8. Bus service, building admilListrators, library and resourcecenter staff members, cafeteria workers, and custodialemployees were scheduled as required.

Provision was made for special education pupils, pupilswho transfer into District #96, and pupils who maJ beretained or advanced. Kindergarten classes are pro-vided on a two-shift-per-day schedule.

Provisions have been made for emergency school closingdays and teacher institute clays.

9. This scheduling system was designed to provide District1196 pupils with quality education, full school days (exceptfor kindergarten pupils), and 180 class days per year.The 45-15 schedule is not a device for increasing classdays of instruction.

10. So far the use of this Plan has resulted in saving theconstruction costs of sixty fully-equipped classroomsfor District /196. New buildings and additions will alsobe scheduled under the 45-15 Plan,

Copyright Valley View District 4/96September, 1970

70 -75

1

JUNE 197010 II 11 13 II I3 16 17 ID 19 PO 11 3313 341326272119 30

GROUP A

GROUP B

GROUP C

GROUP D

JULY 197016 17 II 19 It" 4-111iii ii 111k

II.

13 11 31 31 1 33 36 77 38 19 30 31 1 3

OCTOBER 1970

14 II 11 13 14 I3 IS 17 18 71 30 11 21 11 24 11 3531 3* 29 31 31

NOVEMBER 1970

6 7 $ 11911117214131617 1819 3011 27133473 3437 2/1110 1 I

. ON

I111 MI II

FEBRUARY 1971

IS 11 11 II 14 I! 14 11 IS 19 347 71 /I 13 34 21 NI. 11 II

MARCH 1971

10 II 11 11 34 II IS 17 IS to to II n 22 14 11 I 1 3 4

4.ill III iii iiiJUNE 1971

10 11 11 11 14 11 Ili 20 21 12 11 14 VI MI 71 30 rt 30

JULY 1971

WI 11 11 44 11 MI 17 la o Sin 1 24 lianas 20 70

AUGUST 1970I 1 7 444444 H 11 ,1 11 t, ,S M 17 II 19 29 II 12 21 24 2,1T2e i .13

I I11 111111 MU 1 I 111 III II

101.1117 jilt "Ill /jilt-

1 1 111 1 TON: 11111 tali I I I II- I

11111 .11111110F:

DECEMBER 1970

SEPTEMBER 1970

111111111rl!! 'MU

JANUARY 1971

I :IP !IIII ill 1 111 1 11 .1 111 11111ii

)

II ; AIIII -11\'

Ilm moll,m, film' ow ilm so mow

"mill III 11111 11111 11111IISO t.

NS MEMOS MEMOI MEM MEISOI OE .11111 11111 Ill" !"" 71111 III 1 11111

! !LP. Mil 'II ITI 11.61 lumur MEMOS SEEM SEE ME

/./ // emu.

I I! ! !!!!!! ! ! I! ! 11 I I I .1.

APPENDIX C

ILLINOIS LEGISLATION AND STATE OFFICE GUIDELINESAFFECTING YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL OPERATIONS

78- 72

State of IllinoisOffice of the Superintendent of Public Instruction

302 State Office BuildingSpringfield, Illinois 62706

October 1, 1969

Ray PageSuperintendent

Method of Distributing General State Aidto Districts on an Approved

Twelve Month Calendar

House Bill 1525 was passed by the Seventy-Sixth General Assemblyand was signed into law by the Governor on August 18, 1969. Thelaw authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to determinethe General State Aid apportionment to districts that operate on anapproved twelve month calendar in accordance with Section 18.8 ofThe School Code of Illinois as near as ma7 be applicable. Thefollowing procedure will be followed in a school district which oper-ates on an approved twelve month calendar during 1970-1971.

I. General State Aid payments in 1970-1971 will be com-puted on the following basis:

1. The best six months' average daily attendancefor the 1969-1970 school year

2. The 196S assessed valuation of the school district

For the 1970-1971 school year, attendance shall bemaintained for each tract. In order to compute theaverage daily attendance for a month, the total daysof attendance shall be divided by the number of daysschool was in session for that month. The averagedaily attendance for the best six months of the fiscalyear will be the initial basis for the 1970-1971 StateAid computation. Inasmucll as approximately seventy-five percent of the pupils arc enrolled at any time, thebest six months' average daily attendance will be multi-plied by four and divided by three to determine thedistrict's weighted best six months of average dailyattendance. The average daily attendance for pupilsin grades 9-12 will be multiplied by 1.25 in the StateAid calculation.

Ill. General State Aid will be distributed to approved schooldistricts in the following manner:

7973

The first General State Aid payment may bevouchered to the. State Auditor immediatelyfollowing the final approval of the CommonSchool Fund appropriation in an amount equalto approximately one-sixth of the district'sGeneral State Aid Claim entitlement for 1970-1971.

Z. Beginning September 1970, payments will be madeto approved districts in the same manner asGeneral State Aid payments are made to alldistricts in the State of Illinois; these paymentsshall reflect any prior reimbursement.

A bill was introduced on April 22; 1970, into the Illinois StateSenate by Senator Bilbert to amend Chapter 122, Paragraphs 10-19.1and 10-20.12 of the school code to allow for a full school year for oneor more schools in a district. It was signed into law by GovernorOgilvie on June 29, 1970, the day before the school began the 45-15Plan. The legislation read;

Any school district may, by resolution of its board,operate one or more schools within the district on afull year school plan approved by the Superintendentof Public Instruction. Any board which operates underthis Section shall devise a plan so that a student'srequired attendance in school shall be for a minimumterm of 180 days of actual attendance, including notmore than four institute days, during a twelve-monthperiod, but shall not exceed 185 days. Under suchplan, no teacher shall be required to teach morethan 185 days. A calendar of 180 days may be estab-lished with the approval of the Superintendent ofPublic Instruction,

80-74-

APPENDIX

Opinions and Attitudes of Professional StaffToward 45-15 Plan as of June 9, 1970

Overview

Detailed Analysis of161 Completed Questionnairer,

Factor Analysis of Questionnaire

Study of Sub-sample Differences

81- 75

OVERVIEW

On May 15, 1970, the entire professional staff of District 1106was asked to complete a questionnaire titled, "Final. Professional.....;valuation," A total of 240 questionnaires were returned. Thestaff was asked to respond to forty-two items by indicating whetherthey: (1) "Heartily Agree, " (2) "Mildly Agree," (3) "Don'tknow or mixed reactions," (4) "Mildly Disagree," (5) "StronglyDisagree." After each item, the staff member was to respond bymarking the number which reflected his feelings.

All staff members were told that this would be the final com-prehensive evaluation prior to the June 30 opening and were asked togive as rigorous a rating as possible to the items presented. Seventy-nine incomrlete questionnaires, consisting of twenty men and fifty-nine women, were analyzed separately to see if significance differ-ences existed. The differences were so minor, the two groups werecombined for much of the analysis.

Presented below in Table 1 is a summary of the total numberof responses to each question by rating categories. This table showsthe results of 161 completed questionnaires. (See Appendix A forinstrument.)

Table 1Summary of Answers on Completed Evaluations

QuestionNumber

RATINGS

HeartilyAgree

MildlyAgree

Don'torReactions

KnowMixed

%

MildlyDisagreen %

StronglyDisagreen %n % n % n

1 103 64.0 21 13.0 22 13. 7 5 3. I 10 6. 22 100 62.1 29 18.0 17 10,5 6 I 3. 7 9 5. 6

3 10 6. 2 21 13.0 431

1 26, 7 40 124. 8 47 29. 24 32 10.9 25 15.5 82 50.9 17110.5 5 3.15* 3 1.9 7 4.3 17 1 10.5 41 2.5

69 42.8 56 34.8 31 19.3 41 '2.5 1 0.67 94 58.4 41 25.5 23 14.3 21. 1. 2 1 0. 68 j 63 39.1 45 27.0 41 1 25.5 6 I 3. 7 6 3. 7

9 40 24.8 49

14-1

49

30.48.7

30.4

43-1_

79

82

1 26.7 22 1 13. 7 7 4.310 33 20.5 49.0

50.923

-I14.3

6 3.712

_1

7.411 11 1 3. 0 1.9

4: Only 3 pet sons answered t pis cuestion as many of he facultyeither did not have children or did not live in the Valley View District,

- 7682

Table I (continued)Summary of AnSWe vs on Comp3eted Evaluations

QuestionNumber

11A TINGS

MildlyDisagreen1617I_181

HeartilyAgreen

1-7-1

MildlyAgreen1 %

47)-128. 6I__

491 30. 4

Don'torReactio.,isn

KnowMixed

I $45. 9

1 %

StronglyDisa.rer

I %10.5

n I %12 741 1.1 6 j 3, 7

13 27 16.8 59 1 36. 6 11.1_

8 5 r'

14 101

6. 2 311-I611

19. 3 76 43.531.1

31 19.315 9, 3

8, I13 1J-5 I 3. 115 30 i 18, 6

-37.9 50 1

16 56 34.8 471 29. 2I

30

55

18. 6

34. 2

17 10. 5

43 26.711

-I11

6 86.86,2

17_I_

15 1---L15

9 3 371 23.018 9.3 311 19.3 71-1-

46

44.128, 6

34 21.1I

20 12.44

27 16.822 13. 7

-110-

19 45 27.9 461 28. 6I

4_1

4-1-t..)-I____3

2. 5

2. 5

3 7

i 1.9

20 10

27

6. 2

1.____1 6

.8_

24. 2

221 1 3, 7

441 27. 31

98

62

60.81 38. 521

22 39 61 37. 9 44 27, 3 141 8, 723 13 8.1 31 19.3 67 41,6 34 21.1 16 9.974 18

___L

70

11.143. 5

I

59 36.6 40 24.8 30 18.6 14 J3

8.71, 925 41 25, 5 30

--118. 6 17 10. 5

26 43 26,7 36 22. 4-163 39.1 15 9. 3 4 Z. 5

27 17 1 10.5 44 27.3 85 52.8 13 8.1 2 1.228 20 J'12 4 42 26.1 62 38.5 --I28

18

17.4 9 5. 6- --29 24 14.9 41 25. 5 69 42.8 11.1 9 5. 6

30 28 17, 4 41 25.5 66 41.045. 3

19I

26 4__

-111.8i16 1

1 6,8

7 4, 331 17 10. 5 39 24. 2 73

1---76

1 6

4

3.7I

3c: 21 13. 0I

33 20. 5 47. 2 27_I

28--4--

1 1

2. 5

33 18 11, 1 37 23.0 70

88---/

43. 5

54. 6

17. 4

1----!1 6 8

8 5. 0

34 20 1 12.4 39 2.4.2 3 1.9

35 8 I 5.0 10___/

17

6,2 62 38,5 61137 9 201---!-- 12,436 14 118 7 10.5 77

----r--22

801--

100

901

79

44

47.8 40124.8I--

1 1. 2

13 8.137 78_-

6

12

148

3.75534.2-115J

2

9. 3

18, 61

21.124,8Z7. 3

13. 7

49. 7

62. 1

55.9

2 4-31

13 i

4 2.538 119. 3 29 1 18. 0

1

39-

1_ 7. 4 30--I--

6 1 3. 78.1 _______J11 3. 7 8_1 1 5.040

_,

71

4.317 1 10.51

34

40

44

22

411-

49.01 27, 3L

_1

151

11J

9.3 10 1 6.26 1 3, 7

I42 56 34.8 1 6.8

83- 77 -

r

F

1

DETAILED ANALYSIS or161 COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES

Each of the original forty-two questions has been placedinto one of the following eleven separate groupings:

a. General View of 45-15 Planb. Student Successc. Teacher Successd. Innovationse. lntra-School Relationsf. Attitudes of Lay Citizensg. Attitudes of Professional Staffh. Professional Contracts

Costsj. Tooling Up (Planning, Inservice,

Professional Understandings)

a, General View of 45-15 Plan:

Item:26. The 45-15 Plan will still be in operation five years

from now(26.7, 22.4, 39.1, 9.3, 2.5)

37. District #96 will gain national attention in the nextfive years.(48.4, 34. Z, 13. 7, 1. 2, 2, 5)

42. All in all, the 45-15 Plan is the most exciting educationalinnovation I have ever participated in(34.8, 27.3, 27.3, 6.8, 3,7)

Almost one-half of the respondents felt the 45-15 Plan wouldbe in operation for at least five years, over four fifths predictedthat in five years the Plan would gain national attention, and almosttwo-thirds of the staff stated.that the 45-15 Plan was the most excit-ing educational innovation in which they had ever' participated. Thepercentage scores in disagreement with these issues arc extremelylow when compared with the evaluations of other questions.

)11( The five percentage figures from Table I are given in parentheses.

8 ti

- 78 -

b. Student Success:

11. Students will do better on yearly achievement testsbecause of several short vacations instead of onalong summer vacation.(13. 0, 30. 4, 50.9, 3. 7, 1. 9)

19. Absenteeism will be -much higher during the summermonths.(27.9, 28.6, 28.6, 12,4, 2,5)

20. Students will become more positive in attitudes towardschool.(6.2, 13.7, 60.8, 16,8, 2.5)

24. Half or more of the children will return to the schoolduring their vacations at least once a week if they areallowed to use libraries, participate in extra-curricularactivities, and join field trips.(11.1, 36.6, 24,8, 18.6, 8.7)

36. Students will do less homework under the .45-15 Plan,(8.7, 10.5, 47.8, 24,8, 8,1)

There was a considerable reluctance to make decisive state-ments about predicted student success by the respondents. Over43% did feel that positive gains could he expected in student achieve-ment, Over one-half of the responO.Aits thought that absenteeismwould be much higher during the summer months. Almcst half thestaff did predict that students would return to school during vacationsif given the opportunity, Relatively few would respond strongly eitherway to the statement that "students will do less homework."

Teacher Success:

10. Teachers who will be working more than the customary184 days within a twelve-month period will become tiredand worn out.(20. 5, 8.7, 49. 0, 14. 3, 7. 4)

15. If the 45-15 12an lasts for five years, then a higherproportion, of men teachers will be employed in thedistrict.(18.6, 37.9, 31.1, 9.3, 3.1)

17. It will be much harder to teach under the 45-15 Plan.(9. 3, 23. 0, 34. 2, 26. 7, 6.8)

28, Teacher turnover will be reduced.(12.4, 26.1, 38, 5, 17.4, 5.6)

85- 79

c. Teacher Success (conthmed)

38, Teacher effectiveness will decrease during the nextfive years under the 45-15 Plan.(3. 7, 9. 3, 49. 7, 19, 3, 18. 0)

The responses indicate a great deal of uncertainty by the staffabout what the outcomes of the 45-15 Plan as far as teachers areconcerned. Nearly 30% thought teachers would become tired andworn out if they taught more than the customary 184 days but nearly22% disagreed. There was not agreement 031 how hard it would be toteach or on teacher turnover. Closest agreement (56. 5 %) was on theprediction of more men teachers eventually being employed as aresult of the 45-15 Plan.

d. Innovations:

4, Cooperative teaching teams are a fine arrangement.(19, 9, 15,5, 50.9, 10.5, 3,1)

14, A completely individualized instruction program is mucheasier under the 45-15 Plan, (Ignore special educationclasses.)(6,2, 19, 3, 43,5, 19.3, 8.1)

29, Individualized instruction will be used by most or allteachers, grades K-6, in at least two subjects by 1974in District 1196.(14. 9, 25, 5, 42.8,, 11.1, 5, 6)

While over half of the respondents failed to commit themselveson cooperative teaching (not yet tried out), over one -third did agreewith the statement that "cooperative teaching teams are a fine arrange-ment."' One-fourth disagreed and one-fourth agreed that individualizedinstruction would be easier un0..i the 45-15 Plan, More teachers (40. 4%)believed individualized instruction would be used by most or all teachersin District 1196 by 1974, though many (17. 7 %) disagreed with that too,

e. Intra-School Relations:

32, Student-teacher-parent conferences will increase underthe 45-15 Plan.(13.0, 20.5, 47, 2, 16.8, 2,5)

39. Trust between teachers and students in District 1196 willincr' ase in the next two years.(7,4, 18,6, 62,1, 8,1, 3,7)

40, Trust between teachers and administrators in District 1196will increase in the next two years.(4,3, 21,1, 55.9,813. 7, 5. 0)

80 -

e. Jntra -School Relations (ccntinucd)

Half or more of the staff did not believe that intra-school rela-tions would be affected by the 45-15 Plan, The remaining personsdid not agree, though they tended to be more positive than negative.The number who were pessimistic was still large enough (19. 3 %,11.8%, 18.7%) perhaps for the administration to be concerned about it,

f, Attitudes of Lay Citizens:

12, Families will get used to several short vacations andmost will. give mild or strong support after one year.(10. 5, 28.6, 45. 9, 11.1, 3. 7)

13. The families in Track A will be the most negativetoward the 45-15 Plan because they have to start first,(16.8, 30,4, 36.6, 11.1, 5.0)

18, Other community agencies and programs, such as parkand recreation, church, and summer camp, will quicklyadjust with little complaint to the 45-15 Plan.(9.3, 19.3, 44.1, 21,1, 6,2)

22, Some families will move out of the school district becauseof the 45-15 Plan.(24, 2, 37.9, 27, 3, 8, 7, 1. 9)

23, Some families will mcve into the school district becauseof the 45-15 Plan.(8. 1, 1.9. 3, 41. 6, 21. 1, 9.9)

27, Parental attitudes, on the average, will improve towardthe school district under the 45-15 Plan,(10.5, 27.3, 52,8, 8.1, 1,2)

41, Taxpayers without children will feel more positive towardDistrict g96 in the next five years.(10. 5, 24, 8, 49. 0, 9. 3, 6. 2)

Obviously, the staff wa.E., not agreeing very well on what thereactions of the community would be, though most were either positiveor neutral, The one exception waz, the large agreement (62. 1 %) thatsome families would leave the cornm,mity because of the 45-15 Plan,thougl a small number (10, 6 %) did not believe this either.

g. Attitudes of Professional Staff:

7. Your principal's attitude toward the 45-15 Plan is good,(58,4, 25.5, 14, 3, 1.2, 0.6)

8, Your own L.ttitude toward the 45-15 Plan is food.(39,1, 27,9, 25.5, 3.7, 3.7)

8 7- 81 -

g. Attitudes of Professional Staff (continued)

These items showed the staff more positive toward the 45-15Plan than they anticipated the community to be.

h. Professional Contracts;

1. The length of my contract for next year is just right,(64.0, 13,0, 13.7, 3.1, 6,2)

2. The track(s) I will be working with is(are) the one(s)I wanted.(62, 1, 18, 0, 10, 5, 3, 7, 5, 6)

3, My salary per month for next year (i.e., ignore thelength of your contract) is excellent compared to salariesof surrounding districts.(6,2, 13,0, 26.7, 24.8, 29.2)

16. Elementary education should have more men teachersthan presently.(34.8, 29.2, 18.6, 10.5, 6.8)

It is apparent that a large number of the staff agreed heartilythat the length of their contract and the tracks) which they would beworking with were satisfactory. It should be noted that Items "1"and "2" received a higher percentage of responses for "heartilyagree" than any other questions in this questionnaire. This pro-vision is a direct outcome of the 45-15 Plan. In contast is theirobvious dissatisfaction with their salary schedule, a feature notrelated to the 45-15 Plan,

Costs:

21. Building maintenance and major repair costs per monthper building will go up.(16.8, 27,3, 38.5, 13,7, 3.7)

30. There will be greater variation in the sizes of elLssesunder the 45-15 Plan.(17.4, 25.5, 41.0, 11.8, 4.3)

31. Administrative costs per child will go up under the 45-15Plan as compared to similar districts. operating under atraditional nine -month schedule.(10.5, 24.2, 45,3, 16.1, 3,7)

33, Costs of instructional materials and equipment per childper year will increase,(11.1, 23.0, 43.5, 17.4, 5.0)

-32-

80

Costs (continued)

34, Building costs (debt retirement) per child will go downunder the 45-15 Plan,(12, 4, 24,2, 54, 6, 6,8, 1,9)

The results on these questions provide a surprise, Even thoughthe top admhListrative staff and the school board have anticipated equalor reduced costs per child for administration, maintenance and repair,and instructional materials and equipment, a larger number of thestaff disagreed than agreed! Perhaps the "per child" and "per month"phrases were not fully understood when the items were read, Whilenot as large a number, 8.7% also thought building costs would remainthe same or go up under the 45-15 Plan! The results are so surprising,added effort might be made in the future to find explanations for theseopinions.

Tooling U_E: (Planning, Inservice, Professional Understandings)

6, Your principal's understanding of the 45-15 Plan is good,(42.8, 34.8, 19.3, 2.5, 0,6)

9. The planning done by the administrative staff other thanyour principal has been good.(24.8, 30.4, 26.7, 13.7, 4, 3)

25. Inservice training is needed if the 45-15 Plan is to workwell.(43. 5, 25, 5, 18, 6, 10. 5, 1. 9)

35, Teachers will make less use of cumulative folders underthe 45-15 Plan.(5.0, 6.2, 38.5, 37.9, 12.4)

89- 83 -

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE

Out of the total sample of 240, there were 224 that werealmost or totally completed on all items. Product moment correla-tions were computed, using a program that could handle. missingdata. The smallest n on any item was 218.

'The principal axis factor analysis program generated fiftyfactors. The first five are shown in Table 2:

Table 2Summary of Principal Axis Factor Analysis

Factor Variance Percent VarianceCumulativePercentage

1 6.36 12.7 12.72 3.27 6.5 19.23 2.48 5.0 24.24 2.18 4.4 28.65 2.08 4.2 32.7

The items with the largest loadings on the first four factorsare given in Table 3:

Table 3Items with Highest Factor Loadings Principal Axis

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading

8 .63 33 .64 43 -.54 40 -.4412 .63 38 .61 3 -.47 30 .424L .62 36 .53 7 -.44 19 .41

9 .59 31 .52 6 -.41 21 .3911 .56 35 .48 27 .36 39 -.3827 .55 13 .41 1 -.35 32 -.3440 .53 19 .41 24 .3426 .52 17 .40 2 -.3229 .52 32 .3539 .51 40 .35

An orthogonal rotation analysis was also used. The resultsare given in Tables 4 and 5:

90- 84 -

Table 4Summary of Orthogonal Rotation Analysis

Factor1

23

Variance3. 33. 12, 7

Percent Variance13, 612. 711.7

'CumulativePercentage

13.626. 437. 5

4 2. 7 10. 9 48,45 2,3 9. 7 58.16 2. 3 9. 3 67. 47 2, 1 8,6 76. 08 2, 1 8, 5 84, 69 2. 0 8, 1 92, 7

10 1.8 7. 3 100. 0

Table 5Items with Highest Factor Loadings Orthogonal Rotation

Factor 1Item Loading

Factor 2Item Loading

Factor 3Item Loading

Factor 4Item Loading

37 .66 32 .71 38 ,68 6 .8341 . 53 40 . 61 35 . 56 7 . 7942 ,52 39 ,53 17 .52 9 ,4926 . 50 23 . 51 10 . 50 8 . 4611 . 48 24 . 51 36 . 47 3 , 3827 . 45 9 . 47 26 . 39 11 . 3039 . 44 27 . 42 33 . 31

8 . 42 42 , 36 19 . 3025 .41 28 .35 8 ,2834 . 41 41 , 30 13 , 27

The means, standard deviations, and principal axis loadingsare given in Table 6:

Table 6Summary of Information on Individual Items

Item Mean Standard Deviation Factors Loadings1 1, 6 1. 2 1 (. 33) 3 (. 34)2 1.6 1.2 1 (.39) 3

3 3. 3 1. 5 1 (. 35) 3 ( -, 47)4 2,3 1,2 1 (,35) 5 ( -, 38)5 3.0 1, 3 5 ( -, 38)6 1,8 0.9 1 (. cl). 3 ( -, 41)7 1, 5 0.8 1 (. 40) 3 ( -. 44)8 2, 0 1. 0 1 (. 64)9 2. 3 1. 2 1 (. 59)

91- 85 -

Table 6, Summary oJ. Information. on Individual Reins (continued)

Item10

Mean2.7

Staivlard De via lion1.2

Factors Loacliims

11 2.5 1.0 1 (. 56)12 2.6 1.0 1 (. 62)13 2.6 1.0 2 (-. 41)14 3.0 1.2 1 (.34)15 2.3 1.016 2.1 1.317 2.7 1.4 2 (.41)18 2.9 1. 1 1 (.42)19 2.4 I. 1 2 (. 41) 4 (.41)20 3.0 0.9 1 (.48)11 2.6 I . 1 2 (. 31) 4 (. 39)22 2.4 3. 123 3.1 1.1 1 (.38)24 2.7 1.2 3 (. 34)25 2.0 1.1 1 (.38)26 2.3 0.9 1 (. 5Z)27 2,6 0.9 1 (. 55) 3 (. 35)28 2.7 1.0 1 (.45)29 2.6 1.1 1 (. 5Z)30 2.6 1.1 4 (.42)31 2.8 1.1 2 (. 52)32 2,7 1.1 1 (. 33) 2 (. 36) 4 ( -. 34)33 2.8 1.1 2 (.64)3.t 2.6 1.1:45 3.3 1.1 2 (.48)36 3,1 1.1 2 (. 53)37 1.6 0.9 1 (. 49)38 3.3 1.1 2 (. 61)39 2.7 1.0 1 (. 51)40 2,8 1.1 1 (. 54) 2 (. 35) 4 ( -. 44)41 2.7 1.0 1 (.38)42 2,1 1.2 1 (. 62)43 1.5 1.1 3 (-. 54)

9w- 86 -

STUDY OF SUB-SAMPLE DIFFERENCES

Means on all items were computed z,fter the sample had beensplit by variou criterion variables. The criterion variables weregrade level (primary, intermediate, and junior high school), member-ship on teaching teams, professional role (teacher, administrator,para-professional, other), sex, and whether employment would beexpected in the district for another two years. Because age wasused as a continuous variable, correlations are reported instead.The tables below provide the means, standard deviations, and t-valuesfor those means that significantly varied.

All items have values as follows:1 :--. Heartily Agree2 = Mildly Agree3 7,-- Don'tKnow or MixedReactions4 Mildly Disagree5 Strongly Disagree

Table 7Primary, Intermediate, and Junior High School Staff

Compared on Items Showing Significant Differences Among Means

Junior HighItem Primary Intermediate School T-test

Mn S. D. Mn S.D. Mn S.D. 1 vs 2 1 vs 3 2 vs 31 1.36 1.00 1.66 1.22 1.78 1.27 1.50 2.06 0.516 1.68 0.90 2.04 0.91 1.80 0.85 2.18 0.75 1.40

13 2.62 1.00 2.43 1.09 2.87 0.98 1.04 1.39 2.2518 3.01 1.06 2.73 1.09 2.60 1.10 1.46 2.12 0.6421 2.75 1.10 2.34 1.18 2.45 1.12 ?..02 -1.49 0.53

Table 8Membership on Cooperative Teams Compared on

Items Showing Significant Differences Between Means

Item Members Non-Members T-ValueMn S. D. Mn S. D.

4 1.80 1.23 2.62 1.13 4.605 3.69 0.53 3.79 1.48 3. 15

41 2.73 1.06 2.36 1.03 2 34

Cl 3- 87 -

Table 9Professional Role Compared on Items Showing Significant

Differences Among Means

Item TeacherMn

Administrator OtherMn S. D. Mn S. D.

T -Value1 vs 2 1 vs 5 2 vs 3

3 3.47 1.44 3.50 1.27 2.05 1. )6 0.06 4,05 3.0.56 1.82 0.91 1.10 0.74 1.56 0.86 2.45 1.18 1.417 1.58 0.82 1.09 0.32 1.44 0.78 0.66 2.098 1.99 1.05 1,20 0,63 2,00 1.08 2.36 0.04 2,139 2.40 1,20 2.10 0.74 78 1.21 0.79 2.11 0.76

12 2.70 1.03 2.00 0.82 28 1.13 2.11 1.6,1 0.6813 2.57 1.07 3.50 1.27 3.00 1.03 2.66 1.63 1.1317 2.64 1.31 3.70 1.83 2.39 1.79 2.44 0,77 1,8535 3.29 1.20 4.00 1.05 3.17 1.04 1.83 0.44 Z. 0238 3.26 1.22 4.00 0.94 3.05 1.30 1.88 0.69 2.0141 2.65 1.08 2.30 1.16 2.50 1.04 1.00 0.56 2.4742 20)5 1.23 1.40 0.70 2.44 1.15 1.66 1.30 2.61

Table 10Sex Differences Compared on Items Showing Significant

Differences Between Means

Item Men Women T -ValueMn S.D. Mn S. D.

3 3.57 1.40 3.13 1.52 2,1216 1.73 1.02 2.24 1.33 2.9429 2.77 1.06 2.36 1.11 2.17

Item

Table 11Expected Employment (Two Years Hence or Not)

in Valley View District Compared on Items ShowingSignificant Differences Between Means

Expect Employmentin f WOMn

Year sDo Not ExpectEmployittent

S. D. Mn S. D.T -Value

8 1.67 0.84 2.17 1.28 3.24.18 2.60 1.09 3.04 1.13 2.6326 1.98 1.07 2.47 1.02 3,1028 2.58 1.07 2.93 1.11 ?. 1738 3.52 1.13 3.05 1.35 2.57

94- 88 -

Table 12Correlations Between Age and Individual Items on the

"Final Professional E valuati on" Scale(Only Highest Values Shown)

ItemProduct MomentCorrelation

45 (Role) 2516 14

9 1430 1329 13

4 1238 12

95- 89 -

APPENDIX ESTUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND ABILITY

Because existing achievement test scores for grades 1-6 werethe r-.:sults of individual teacher administration with accompanyingvariations in reliability, it was decided to test a stratified sampleunder rigorous conditions of administration during the month of April,1970. Two teachers with past experience in test administration firstgave the battery of tests under the direction of the project director.When he was assured that they fully understood the details of theadministration and would not significantly depart from the instructions(including time limits, assistance, seating arrangements, movement,and additional materials), they then completed the testing with theassistance of another teacher who helped bring the pupils to the test-ing room and to do monitoring. Pupils were greeted with a friendlysmile and other attention, and given these instructions:

Once the test begins, please work hard but you cannottalk to each other or help each other. The results ofthis test will in no way influence your class grades,The purpose of this test is to find out whether the 45-15Plan will help you in your school work, Do you haveany questions?

The instructions for the test administration were used verbatimas given in the publisher's Directions for Administration: Metropoli-tan Achievement Tests, dated 1959. The tests are published byHarcourt, Brace and World, Inc. Form A was used. The tests forgrades 1-4 were hand scored and tabulated. All additions and tabu-lations were re-checked once. Every tenth test was re-scored todiscover if any gross errors were occurring. As only minor errors(none more than one test item in a sub-test) were found in seven ofthe seventy-five tests re-scored, the remaining tests were not re-scored, For grades 5 and 6, a machine-scored answer sheet wasused, The publisher provided the scoring service. The tests of onegrade at one school were scored by hand to see if the results agreedwith the machine scoring, which they did.

Because the regllar junior High school achievement tests wereadministered to all students by the same test administrators, theseresults were used for the seventh grade instead of administeringanother battery, The test used for the seventh grade was The Stan-ford Achievement Test, Form X , published by Harcourt, Braceand World, Inc. Test results for the eighth grade were not usedbecause these students would not be exposed to the 45-15 Plan sincethey graduated in June, 1970.

The stratified sample for grades 1-6 was selected by thefollowing procedure, All pupils wee placed into one of 736 possiblecells of a matrix. One pupil was d.iawn r.,:idoinly from each cell ifit contained a samples The matrix, a five-dimensional one, con-

- 909G

sisted of grades (6), schools (5), attendance tracks (4), verbalintelligence by quartiles (1), and sex (2). Quartiles for intelligencewere determined for each school, by grade. Some extra studentswere tested whose scores were used in combined comparisons tc.)compensate for some empty cells. However, only two schools hadgrades 5 and 6, and one school did not have grade 4. This red'icedthe number of cells that could contain a sample to 736 (23 graCes X4 tracks X 4 intelligence quartiles X 2 sexes). In addition, a fewpotentially filled cells did not have a sample. Thus, there was nostudent for the cell of school 1, grade 1, quartile 3, attendancetrack 1, boy. However, there was a boy who could be put into thatcell except for being in the inappronriate attendance track. Hence,his scores were used when comparisons were made that ignoreddifferences among tracks, such as when comparing schools witheach other. Despite this possibility, a few cells were impossible tofill for some of the comparisons. Hence, after t-tests were calcu-lated on the differences between means of the various I. Q, and achieve-ment test results, all of the t-tests close to or exceeding the 5% levelof confidence were reviewed to see if any of the data used in the cal-culations were incomplete because cf empty cells. A few were found,so the data was re-processed by inserting the means of combinedattendance tracks or schools. If schools were being compared, thenthe means of the combined remainin3 tracks were used. If trackswere being compared, then the means of the combined remainingschools were used. However, these adjustments did not change anyt-values from one level of significance (5%, 2%, 1%, 0. 1%) to another.

The results of the tests are given in the various tables whichfollow.

9 791

Tab

le 1

Scho

olI.

Q.

Tes

ts (

Mea

ns),

Gra

de 1

, Sch

ool a

nd A

ttend

ance

Tra

cks

Ach

ieve

men

t (St

anda

rd S

core

s)W

ord

Wor

dK

now

ledg

eD

iscr

imin

atio

nR

eadi

ngA

rith

met

icM

ean

111

3.0

3342

.745

.739

.450

.244

.52

112.

731

53.0

53.3

46.1

50.1

50.6

310

9.8

3156

.056

.652

.452

.554

. 44

105.

531

5Z. 2

51.4

49.8

50.6

51.0

105.

027

49.6

48.1

44.1

48.6

47.6

Tra

ck1

108.

438

50.7

50.5

16.3

49.9

49.4

211

2.5

4149

.952

.245.1

50.3

49.4

310

7.6

3950

.250

.446.2

50.9

49.4

410

8.7

3551

.851

.047.8

50.6

50. 3

Scho

ol1

vs 2

1 vs

31v

F4

1 vs

52

vs 3

2 vs

42

vs 5

S vs

54

vs 5

Not

e; N

one

of th

e di

ffer

ence

s Je

twee

n tr

acks

rea

ch th

e 5%

11,

,--1

of

cigi

I. Q

.

Tab

le 2

Sign

ific

ant T

-te

st V

alue

s of

Dif

fere

nces

Bet

wee

n M

eans

, Gra

de 1

Wor

dK

now

ledg

e4,

016.

00

3.64

2.69

Wor

dD

iscr

imin

atio

n4.

466.

592.

70

2.43

4.07

--

Rea

ding

Ari

thm

etic

3.72

7.74

5.54

2.19

2.98

2.42

2.15

ican

ce.

Tab

le 3

Tes

ts (

Mea

ns),

Gra

de 2

, Sch

ool a

nd A

ttend

ance

Tra

cks

Ach

ieve

men

t (St

anda

rd S

core

s)W

ord

Wor

dA

rith

met

icA

rith

.A

rith

,Sc

hool

I. Q

.N

Kno

wle

dge

Dis

ci-1

m.

Rea

ding

Spel

ling

(Pro

b So

lv)

(Com

p. )

Tot

al M

ean

132

45.0

46.7

43.2

48.6

45.1

55.0

48.7

47. 5

211

5.1

2751

.949

.650

.257

.253

.257

.255

.253

.53

103.

132

51.6

54.3

48.9

51.9

50.5

61.3

54.3

53.3

431

49.3

48.6

47.4

49.3

45.5

50.8

47.7

48.4

510

6.3

3050

.74S

. 1-1

7. 2

53.2

51.5

55.9

54.7

51.5

Tra

ck1

108.

137

50.3

48.4

47.6

50.8

49.0

55.8

51.9

50.5

210

5.0

4049

.951

.047

. 553

.750

.856

.253

.151

. 73

109.

840

49.9

50.3

47.3

54.0

49.0

57.6

52.5

51.5

410

8.0

3548

.447

.946

.948

. 447

.154

.349

.648

. 9

CZ

Not

e: N

one

of th

e di

ffer

ence

s be

twee

n at

tend

ance

trac

ks r

each

the

5% le

vel o

f si

gnif

ican

ce.

CD

Tab

le 4

Sign

ific

ant T

-te

st V

alue

s of

Dif

fere

nces

Bet

wee

n M

eans

, Gra

de 2

Wor

dW

ord

Ari

thm

etic

Ari

th.

Ari

th.

Scho

olK

now

ledg

e D

iscr

im.

Rea

ding

Spel

ling

(Pro

b So

lv)

(Com

p. )

Tot

al1

vs 2

2.55

___

3.35

3.99

3.55

--2.

481

vs 3

3. 1

83.

752.

79

2. 0

82.

22

I vs

42.

09--

--__

____

_-1

vs 5

2.84

2.08

2.85

2 vs

3--

----

----

---

- --

2 vs

42.

752.

722.

012.

582

vs 5

-- -

--

----

--__

--3

vs 4

2,49

3.82

2.08

3 vs

52.

51

2.03

--4

vs 5

----

2. 1

92.

13

Tab

le 5

Scho

ol1.

Q.

N

Tes

ts (

Mea

ns),

Gra

de 3

, Sch

ool a

nd A

ttend

ance

Tra

cks

Ach

ieve

men

t (St

anda

rd S

core

s)W

ord

Wor

dL

ang.

Ari

th.

Kno

wle

dge

Dis

crir

n.R

eadi

ngSp

ellin

gT

otal

(Com

p.)

Ari

thm

etic

(Pro

b So

lv)

Mea

n:

102.

832

47.2

47.8

46.7

51.4

47.2

45. 1

43. 1

47. 0

210

3.7

3247

.948

.546

.051

.549

.249

. 044

.148

. 13

103.

731

50.5

49. 5

47.8

54.2

47.9

49.5

46. 1

43. 4

410

0. 2

2346

, 946

.944

.547

.744

.746

.643

. Z'

45. 6

510

3.2

3250

.151

. 647

.052

.949

.350

.247

. 149

.6T

rack

110

4. 5

4048

.149

. 746

. 752

, 247

.947

.845

. 248

. 02

101.

740

47.6

47. 3

46.0

50. 1

47.0

47.8

43. 7

47. 1

310

3. 3

3949

.350

. 347

. 152

. 648

.147

.343

. 748

,4

102.

534

49.1

48.1

45, 8

51. 3

47.7

49.4

46. 2

48. 3

O C)

Not

e: N

one

or th

e di

ffer

ence

s be

twee

n at

tend

ance

trac

ks is

sig

nifi

cant

.T

able

6Si

gnif

ican

t T -

test

Val

ues

of D

iffe

renc

es B

etw

een

Mea

ns, G

rade

3

Scho

ol1.

Q.

1 vs

21

vs 3

1 vs

41

vs 5

2 vs

32

vs 4

2 vs

53

vs 4

3 vs

54

vs 5

Wor

dW

ord

Lan

g.K

now

ledg

e D

is c

r ir

n.R

eadi

ngSp

ellin

gT

otal

2. 0

3

2. 6

4

2.21

2. 1

7

Ari

th.

(Com

p.)

2.33

Ari

thm

etic

(Pro

b So

lv)

Tab

le 7

Tes

ts (

Mea

ns),

Gra

de 4

, Sch

ool a

nd A

ttend

ance

Tra

cks

Ach

ieve

men

t (St

anda

rd S

core

s)

Scho

olI.

Q.

NW

ord

Kno

wle

dge

Wor

dD

iscr

irn.

Rea

ding

Spel

ling

Lan

g.T

otal

Ari

th.

(Com

p. )

Ari

thm

etic

(Pro

b So

lv)

Mea

n1

103.

132

51.4

51.5

45. 5

55.3

49. 1

50.4

46.2

49.9

210

7. 1

3155

.256

.853

.659

. 455

.962

.556

.957

. 53

104.

332

53.7

56.3

49.5

54.1

49.6

62.8

51.9

54. 0

511

1.5

3753

.454

.352

.258

, 056

.764

.053

. 9'

56. 1

Tra

ck1

104.

729

53.6

55.9

49.9

58.8

55.6

64. 2

55.5

56. 2

210

3.6

3054

. 155

.251

. 159

.054

.256

.951

.054

.53

108.

734

52.1

52.6

49. 1

53. 3

51.3

60.6

52.5

53. 1

410

1.5

3354

.055

.549

.656

. 150

.558

. 050

.353

. 4N

ote:

Onl

y on

e di

ffer

ence

bet

wee

n at

tend

ance

trac

ks r

each

es th

e 5,

0 le

vel o

f si

tz.n

ific

ance

,w

hich

was

bet

wee

n T

rack

s 1

and

3 on

spe

lling

.(T

= 2

. ' 1

with

61

degr

ees

of f

reed

om.)

Tab

le 8

Sign

ific

ant T

-tes

t Val

ues

of D

iffe

renc

es B

etw

een

Mea

ns, G

rade

4W

ord

Wor

dL

ang.

Ari

th.

Ari

thm

etic

Scho

olI.

Q.

Kno

wle

dge

Dis

crim

.R

eadi

ngSp

ellin

gT

otal

{Com

p.)

(Pro

t, So

lv)

I vs

22.

773.

332.

483.

813.

95

1 vs

32.

542.

023.

32-

-1

vs 5

----

3.42

..:. 8

44.

563.

062

vs 3

- --

---

---

---

--2

vs 5

3 vs

52.

20

Table 9

Tests (M

eans), Grade 5, School and A

ttendance Tracks

Achievem

ent Sc ores (Grade E

quivalents)*School-G

rade 5N

12

34

56

78

910

Mean

263

5.15.1

5.55.0

5.15.3

5.14.9

4.85.2

5.13

326.2

5.96.3

5.96.1

5.75.6

5.45.5

5.95.9

532

6.05.5

6.36.3

6.75.9

5.55.6

5.35.9

5.nSchool-G

rade 62

338.2

7.37.6

7.17.9

6.87.0

7.27.4

7.07.7

360

7.36.4

6.76.2

6.56.1

6.15.8

5.76.5

6.35

336,8

6.46.2

6.16.3

6.26.2

6.25.9

6.16.2

Track-G

rade 51

6.05.6

5.75.8

5.95.4

5. 25.5

5.35.8

5.62

5.65.3

5.85.4

5.65.5

5.34.9

5.05.3

5.45.9

5.55.9

5.66.0

5.75.6

5.25.4

5.75. 6

45.8

5.36.2

5.55.5

5.65.2

5.24,7

5.45.4

Track-G

rade 61

7.66.8

7.26.7

6.96,5

6.46.3

6.66.6

6. 72

7.77.0

6.96.7

7.66.3

6,56.6

6.46.7

6.83

7.16.3

6,66.3

6.56.2

6,36.2

6.06.3

6.44

7.06.4

6,45.9

5,96.0

6.25.8

5.66.6

6.2

*Code:

1=

Word K

nowledge

2=

Reading

3=

Spelling4

=L

anguage5

=L

anguage Study Skills6

=A

rithmetic C

omputation

7=

Arithm

etic Problem Solving

8=

Social Studies Information

9=

Social Studies Study Skills10

=Science

Tab

le 1

0Si

gnif

ican

t T -

test

Val

ues

of D

iffe

renc

es B

etw

een

Mea

ns, G

raA

cs 5

-6A

chie

vem

ent T

ests

(G

rade

Equ

ival

ents

)*G

rade

5-

Scho

ol1

23

45

67

89

10

2 vs

32.

232.

172.

642.

252.

422.

442.

002.

382

vs 5

3.39

3.77

3.64

----

2.42

2.31

3 vs

5--

----

----

--G

rade

6 -

Sch

ool

2 vs

32.

182.

582.

713.

443.

003.

533.

492

vs 5

2.40

3.04

2.57

2.74

2.36

2.21

2.07

2.59

3 vs

5T

rack

- G

rade

61

vs 2

1 vs

31

vs 4

2 vs

3C

)2

vs 4

2.09

2.85

3 vs

4

*Cod

e fo

r te

sts:

1=

Wor

d K

now

ledg

e2

= R

eadi

ng3

= S

pelli

ng4

= L

angu

age

5 =

Lan

guag

e St

udy

Skill

s6

= A

rith

met

ic C

ompu

tatio

n7

= A

rith

met

ic P

robl

em S

olvi

ng8

= S

ocia

l Stu

dies

Inf

orm

atio

n9

= S

ocia

l Stu

dies

Stu

dy S

kills

Tab

le 1

1

Tra

ckPa

ragr

aph

Mea

ning

Tes

ts (

Mea

ns),

Gra

de 7

, By

Atte

ndan

ce T

rack

Stan

ford

Ach

ieve

men

t Tes

ts, G

rade

Equ

ival

ents

Ach

ieve

men

t Tes

ts (

Tak

en in

Oct

ober

, 196

9)A

rith

met

icA

rith

met

icA

rith

met

icSp

ellin

gL

angu

age

Com

puta

tion

Con

cept

sA

pplie

dSo

cial

Scie

nce

Scie

nce

16.

57.

36.

55.

56.

46.

56.

56.

52

6. 3

7. 1

6.2

5. 3

6. 1

6.4

6.5

6. 3

36.

47.

Z6.

45.

c6.

o6.

36.

36.

24

6.3

7.0

6.3

5.4

5.9

6.3

6.4

6.0

Not

e:N

one

of th

e di

ffer

ence

s re

ad a

t-va

lue

sign

ific

ant

at th

e 5%

leve

l of

conf

iden

ce.

Z)

C

*7-'.

APPENDIX F

COMMUNITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Sample

Data Collection

Results

10399

SAMPLE

A sample of 400 families was selected out of the total. schooldistrict. Scheduling of families had been done by "census units."Each unit is a small area (approximately a square city block in size)that has some indication of being a sociological wilt. Hence, someunits are much larger or smaller than others. All families in oneunit are on the same attendance track.

Units were grouped by attendance track (4), housing develop-ment (4), and village (3, one being the rural area). Units were ran-domly selected out of the 48 cells; six families were selected out ofeach unit by consecutive house number; half, low to high; half, highto low. When houses were empty or no one responded to a housecall, the next family on the list was selected. This should provide atotal sample of 384. Because some extras were obtained from someunits, these were left in the final analysis when no significant differ-ences or trends were found among; housing developments or "village"areas.

DATA COLLECTION

All questionnaires were hand delivered. If no one was foundat home, one return visit was made. If delivery could not be made,an alternate family was selected. Once a questionnaire was delivered,every attempt was made to obtain the return of the questionnaire, bothby phone and by personal vi tit. On delivery, a specific time wasestablished for the collector to return to the house. The whole pro-cedure produced a return of slightly more than 95% of all deliveredquestionnaires. However, nine of the questionnaires were not usedbecause of not being filled out or only briefly responded to. Mostlythese were by families who had just recently moved into the district.In hindsight, it prcbably would have been better not to have includedanyone in the sample who had not resided in the district at least sixmonths, or at least to have analyzed the results separately.

RESULTS

The first two tables show the results of the total sample.Means are used on those items where a continuous variable is evi-dent or implicit. They are shown in Table I. Table 2 shows thediscrete variables.

106100

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Size of Total Sample

(1 = Excellent; 2 Good; 3 = Average; 4 Poor; 5 = Very Poor)

N Mean S. D.1. Bus schedules 275 3.28 1.082. Elementary teachers 270 3.92 0.713. Junior high school teachers 181 3,67 0.754. Instructional materials 270 3.91 0.835. Elementary building 312 4.21 0.806. Junior high school building 235 4.19 1.087. Principals 245 3.94 0.718. Special services 250 4.04 0.959. Efficient use of tax money 264 2.85 1.16

10. Information on 45-15 Plan 330 3.62 1.1311. Worth of 45-15 Plan 260 3.67 1.3126. How many years have you

lived in this community? 368 5.32 5.31

Table 2Frequency of Responses to Specific Items

12. Have children enrolled Yes 263 No 12713. Will change vacation plans Yes 100 No 207 ? 7714. Could change opinion of

45-15 Plan Yes 81 No 294 ? 315. Other members of family

disagree about worth of45-15 Plan Yes 32 No 298 ? 53

16. Major reasons why the45-15 Plan was adopted:

a. Saving building cost 254b. save instructional costs 87c. Save administrative costs 76d. :'ave healing costs 25e. Improve instruction 144f. Raise teacher salaries via

twel months employment 62g. Bring in more men teachers 23h. Give seasonal vacations 141. Avoid over-crowded classrooms 309j. Other 14

17. Would you vote for highertaxes to avoid the 45-15Plan? Yes 37 No 276 ? 76

107101

Table 2, Frequency of Responses to

18. Do you believe the 45-15Plan will actually savemoney?

19. Are in favor or more menteachers in the elementaryschools?

20. Would you support the Planif students learn more butno money is saved?

21. Would you support the Planif the Plan saves 5% oncosts but students do notlearn more?

22. Are you aware of specialproblems your childrenhave in school?

24, Is there another person(not an educator) whomyou trust and who is well-informed about the 45-15Plan?

25, If your answer were "yes"on Item 21, have youtalked to this person?

27. Who are you? Mother 191Father 62Mother and Father 122Other 12

28. Would you be willing tobe interviewed everysix months about the45-15 Plan? Yes 171 No 207

Specific Items (continued)

Yes 154 No 115 ? 121

Yes 177 No 67 ? 145

Yes 278 No 45 ? 64

Yes 155 No 163 ? 72

Yes 106 No 163 ? 120

Yes 40 No 334 ? 18

Yes 8 No 10

Thc most important concern was whether there were initial,significant differences among attendance tracks. There were veryfew. However, one of the differences was great, that of the olderresidency of the third attendance track. The only explanation thatseems valid is the higher number (about 19) of rural residents inthis track who obviously would be older residents in a school districtthat is growing rapidly as a "bedroom" community. The data forthe attendance groups are given in Table 3:

108- 102

Item

Table 3Means and Freinencic s of Four Attendance Groups

AMn

Attendance Groups

13

MA. Mn Mn

1 3.38 3.24 3.15 3.352 3.95 4.03* 3,93 3:3 3.74 3.80 3.63

47 96:-:c.

4 3.39 4.00 3.90 3.865 4.29 4.30 4.18 4.106 4.30 4.25 4.12 4.097 3.91 4.02 3.96 3,858 4.09 3.98 4.09 3,969 3.04 2.98 2.76 2.68

10 3.58 3.66 3.60 3.6511 3.59 3.91 3,66 3.56

Mean, Items 1-11 3.80 3.70 3.76 3.6312 Yes 67 70 62 64

No 32 28 32 3513 Yes 34 31 16 19

No 54 46 49 58? 9 20 27 21

14 Yes 23 20 13 25No 69 74 79 72

15 Yes 8 10 10 4No 77 71 71 79? 12 16 11 14

16 a 65 62 60 67b 20 21 18 29c 9 22 19 26d 6 7 5 7

e 35 35 37 37r 14 17 16 15

g 4 4 8 7

h 1 4 6 3

i 46 88 82 93j 2 5 3 4

17 Yes 11 7 8 11

No 66 69 65 76? 21 22 21 12

18 Yes 41 33 33 47No 29 25 33 28? 28 90 29 24

19 Yes 46 38 45 48No 20 14 14 19? 33 45 36 31

20 Yet, 79 75 61 63No 7 9 13 16

? 13 13 18 20

* Difference eaheF; the 5(10 level of signifi;,nce.

109- 103

Table 3, Means and Frequencies of Four Attendance Groups (continued'

item AAttendance Groups

B C J)

21 Yes 41 39 39 39No 41 40 40 42? 16 19 19 18

22 Yes 31 27 23 25No 36 39 46 42

24 Yes 9 7 7 17No 85 89 82 78

25 Yes 7 0 1 0No 10 0 0 0

26 Years 4.79 4,52. 7.42 4.5927 Mother 53 48 46 44

Father 11 13 16 22Both 33 32 28 29Other 2 4 3 3

28 Yes 50 42 33 46No 48 53 59 47

The eleven items that rated various characteristics of theSchool district were correlated and factors generated. The correla-tions are given in Table 4:

Table 4Correlations Among Rating Items, 1 through 11

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 .31 .16 .16 .32 .18 .28 .14 .36 .24 . 292 .56 .37 .34 .25 .53 .37 .52 .36 .333 .46 .21 .22 .44 .24 .45 .19 .194 .29 .31 .35 , 47 .39 .25 .205 .47 .35 .32 .39 .29 .346 .28 .29 .34 .22 ,337 .42 .5.E. .26 .248 .45 .21 .349 . 4 2 .47

10 .50

Note that Items 10 and 11 (information received on the Planand worth of the Plan) arc as highly loaded with a "general attitude"factor (Factor 1) as are the other items.

A factor analysis (principal axis) was run on the eleven items,producing the results shown in Table 5, Factor 1 accounted for 27.20/0of the variance.

110- 101 -

1-

Table 5Factor Lcadings on Eleven Items

(Principal ANis Analysis)

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 31 .47 -, 03 -.312 .74 -.05 -.133 .63 -.19 -.154 .62 .02 .055 .57 .26 -.086 .54 .09 .037 .68 .10 -.068 .59 .24 .169 .81 .02 .01

10 .52 .36 -.011 .64 -.04 .06

The differences that were significant are summarized inTable 6, using Chi2 and all tracks together.

Table 6Summary of Significant Differences Among Attendance Tracks

(x-1 times 4-1 degrees of freedom)

Item Level of Significance9 .02%

11 .05%14 .01%16c .02%25 .001%26 .02%

As noted in Table 3, when Items 1 through 11 were comparedby a (-test of differences between means, only one between two tracksreached the 5% level of significance. However, a chi-square isinfluenced by the actial distribution in each cell. This must accountfor Items 9 and 11 reaching a significant Chi2 of 2% and 5%,

In Item 14, (could anything change their opinion), Track Cis more sure of their opinion. This may be accounted for by theirmuch longer residence in the community (7.4 years versus 4,5, 4. 6,and 4.8). No obvious explanation occurs for Track A checking Item16c (some administrative costs) less frequently. Item 25 (talking toothers) might be explained in this way. Track A was the first atten-dance group to start (June 30) and thus been more anxious about thePlan. As noted earlier, Track C having a longer residency seemsa function of the higher number of rural families in the sample.

111105

APPENDIX G

COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS

Sample

Procedures

Results

112- 106

SAMPLE

A sample of eighty families was selected out of the 400 whowere given questionnaires. The Method was to talc twenty out ofeach attendance track who agreed to be interviewed. The final se]oc-tion was made by taking from each attendance track the ten who scoredthe highest. and the ten who scored the lowest on the mean of the firsteleven item." of the community survey questionnaire.

Each family was sent a letter telling them that they had beenselected for a follow-up interview and that the interviewer would callto make an appointment.

Each family when called agreed to an interview. However,when the data was analyzed, one interviewee was left out of the resultsbecause he seemed out of touch with the community. Two otherfamilies shortly after the interview moved to new homes that placedthem in other tracks. The new locations were used in assigning theattendance tracks, on the assumption that if sociological differencesexisted, the new neighborhoods probably represented more closelythe self-images of each family, Because the employed interviewershad already left the community, the final sub-samples remained attwenty-one, twenty-one, seventeen, and twenty.

PROCEDURES

Each family was interviewed for a period that typically lastedfrom thirty to sixty minutes. An important part of the interview wasa rating sheet left with the family by which they rated the qualities ofthe interviewer. The rating sheet was returned by a stamped envelopeaddressed to the director of the project. A total of sixty-three werereturned. The results are shown in Tab.. 1:

Table 1Ratings Given by Families about Behavior of Interviewers

I. Was the interviewer on time?2. Did he answer all of your

questions? (Interviewers wereasked to make referrals whenspecific school decisions aboutfamilies were involved.)

3, Was he friendly and polite?4. Did he say or do anything that

made you feel uncomfortable?5, Do you trust him?6, Did he at arty questions that

you thought inappropriate?7. Arc there any questions he

should have asked, but did not?

113 - 101

Yes No No Response60 0 3

54 6 3

63 0 0

0 62 1

63 0 0

0 63 0

0 61 2

Table 1, Ratings Given by FainilieS about Behavior of Interviewers(continued)

Yes No No Response!8. Would you like to have him at

your next interview session? 63 0

Below arc listed some of the verbatim comments made byfamilies:

A very polite gentleman. Very neat and well dressed.Also, I feel he is very educated.

It was a very well-conducted interviewclearl:, wellprepared.

He couldn't answer our questions but he did give usthe name of a man that would.

Mr. ---- presented a very favorable impression.He seemed to be knowledgeable and dedicated.

It's really very nice to be interviewed by someonewho really listens to what you say. Tie didn't rushus or waste time either. Mr. > a very pleasantperson.

Interview was interesting and informative.

I would like to know if the evaluation will be availableto the public, and if recommendations for changesand betterment will be included.

He was a very polite d courteous man, Ile let usadd a lot of chatter to our conversation, concerningthe 45-15 Plan,

Considering all the interruptions (caused by threechildren), he was most understanding and patient.He must have children of his own,

Mr. was friendly and appeared to be a verycapable- young n1;121.

We a.:e so far cry enthusiastic about the 45-15 Plan.hope the children can adjust and like it- -so far very

goodno complaints,

ani very happy to be of help at any time, in any way.

108

114

I'm very sorry but I forgot the gentleman's name thatinterviewed mo; but I would like him to come back atany time,

Mr. ---- was very courteous and answered all ourquestions and I hope we answered

A very polite gentleman. Very neat and well dressed.Also I feel he is very educated.

It seems the same questions asked were on the formI filled out. How would I know if he made any mistakes?He was pleasant and did only what he was supposed to do --asked the questions and we gave the answers.

Each family was asked if there would be any objections tobeing tape recorded. None objected, but six of the interviews werenot recorded because of mechanical mistakes made by the interviewers.When possible, both parents were interviewed together.

All answers were first coded by one of the interviewers, andthen by the director. Differences were discussed until an agreementwas reached. Indications and cues about attendance tracks wereremoved to the extent possible while the coding was done. Someremarks made possible the apparent identification of tracks with someinterviews.

RESULTS

Since a Chit analysis revealed only one significant difference(5% level of confidence) among the tracks, the actual frequencies foreach track are not reported here, The one difference was on Item 19,"What is the best thing you can think of that the schools could do for(your) children?" For some reason, Tracks A and D had a lot higherproportion who just did not give a response to the question, for atotal of thirty-four versus twenty who did not respond in Tracks Band C. This may have been due to chance since so little seems todistinguish one track from another.

The one big difference that was evident in the questionnaires(longer residency of Track C) did not appear in the interviews. Sinceit appeared that the difference might be due to a larger rural groupin Track C, the actual residency of the interview samples werestudied. Just three of the rural group appeared in the Track C sa Aple.

The results are given below in somewhat abbreviated form,The full interview schedule is given in Appendix A. Some informationis omitted when the information does not seem significant for baselinepurpose s.

115-109-

Table 2Summary of Interview Information

1. What group arc you in?

2. Will you have children inschool this coining year?

3. Please describe your vacationstwo years.

LcnotbWeekends 2One week 4Two weeks 39Three weeks 13Four weeks plus 10None 5Combination 6

Who

Whole family 50Parents 6Combination 9

4. What

5. What

A = 21B = 21

C = 170 = 20

Ycs 71 No 5Yes, in pre-school 3for the family during the last

FrequencyOnce 46Twice 20Three or more 6

PlacesStay home 29Local 17State 10Other states 57

WhenSummer 56Fall 2Winter 0Spring 0More than one 15

ActivitiesVisit relatives 40Pleasure 63EducationE.1 5Business 3Other 3

changes will the 45-15 Plan cause in your vacation?None 57Those to our advantage 24Those to our disadvantage 13Will go without children 0Will take children out of school 11

is your overall rating of the school district?Excellent 30Good 32Ave rage 9Poor 2Very Poor 3

Don't Know 3

6. and 7. What would you rate as the worst and best features ofthe district?

Arithmetic teachingArithmetic textbooksTeaching of readingReading booksScience teaching 116

- 110

Best51

205

10

Worst3

32

Table 2, Summary of Interview Information (continued)

Best WorstScience materials 5 1

Social studies teaching 0 1

Social studies materials 0 0Special education classes 17 3Elementary teachers 18 3Junior high school teachers 3 0Music instruction 2 5Art instruction 1 2Recreational programs 2 13Libraries 8 6Bus schedule, last year 2 16Bus schedule, next year 0 11Schools children assigned to

last year 0 2Schools, this year 3 1

Attendance track 1 1

Principals 4 0School board policies on expenditures 4 13Amount of taxes 0 4Information from schobls 10 1045-15 Plan 14 5

8. Do you know any of theschool board memberspersonally? Yes 8 No 71

9. Have you ever talked to anyof the school board membersabout the 45-15 Plan? Yes 17 N o 62

10. Have you ever talked to aprincipal or a teacher aboutthe 45-15 Plan? Yes 22 No 57

11. Have you ever talked to anyof your neighbors about the45-15 Plan? Ycs 69 No 9If "yes," did this help yo,.form an opinion? Yes 17 No 52

12. Do you read most of the newsarticles on the 45-15 Plan? Ycs 69 No 9

13. What questions remain unanswered in your own mind aboutthe 45-15 Plan?

How to clonge tracks 18Student assignments 11Vacation schedules 37Air conditioning 16Teacher fatigue 20

Table 2, Summary of Interview Information (continued)

Cur r ic Id um 19How much children will learn 17II0\ much money will be saved 24Children transferring or

graduating into high school 45How to use vacations 14Other 7

14, What is your opinion of the 45-15 Plan?Excellent 38Good 22Average 6Poor 4Very Poor 5No Opinion 4

15, Do you believe the Planwill actually save moneyfor the district?

16, Would you support the Planif no money is saved butachievement tests show thatstudents learn more?

17, Would you support the 45-15Plan if it were to save 5% ontotal costs but achievementtests showed that the studentslearned the same amount asunder the traditional schoolyear?

Yes 29Not sure 29

Yes 73Not sure 4

Yes 61Not sure 5

No 21

No 2

No 13

18, Do your children have anyspecial problems in schoolnow? Yes 20 No 50

Not sure 519, What is the best thing you can think of that the schools could

do for (your) children?Educate them 50Broaden interestsIndividualize instruction 9Maintain better discipline 8Achieve better child-

teacher parent cooperation 1

Teach independence andresponsibility 8

Get along with others 4

Other1

14

- 11

812 -

Table 2, Summary of Interview Information (continued)

19a. Are the schools doing it?(See "19,")

20, Should schools help allchildren to get better jobs?

Yes 44Not sure 19

Yes 60Not sure 10

No lb

No 9

21, Do you want any of yourchildren to go to college? Yes 53 No 0

Not sure 1Let them decide 18Boys only 6

22, How long have you lived in this community?Zero to six months 7Six to twelve months 10One to two years 14Two to three years 8Three to five years 5

Five to ten years 27Ten plus years

23, Did the reputation of the schooldistrict in any way influenceyour decision to come? Yes 13 Maybe 3 No 63

24, Are there any reasons why you might leave this area in the nexttwo years?

No 28YesYes, neighbors 7Yes, high school 8Yes, transfer 22Yes, taxes 7Yes, other 6

25, Will the 45-15 Plan cause any change in your household budget?No 52Change time of purchase 8

More summer clothes 15Other 2

Don't know 2

26, Will the 45 -15 Plan changethe times that friends andrelatives visit your family? Yes 7 No 68

Don't know 4

Table 2, Summary of Interview Information (continued)

27. Do you know personally ofany family who has movedinto or out of the districtbecause of the 45-15 Plan?

28. Do you know personally ofany family who will placetheir children into or takethem out of parochial schoolsbecause of the 45-15 Plan?

120- 114 -

Yes 5 No 74

Yes b No 71Don't know 2

APPENDIX H

FISCAL ANALYSIS

Overview

Expenditures

Projections andConsiderations

Development and"Start-Up" Costs

OVER VIE \V

In 1969 and 1970 Valley View School District 696, Lockport,Illinois, laid plans to revise its school year calendar so that itsschool buildings would be able to serve more pupils. The new cal-endar, called the 45-15 Plan, has schools open all year long, Pupilsare assigned to one of four attendance schedules so that one-fourthof the total pupils are on vacation at all times. The school build;np,s,then, arc required to house only three-fourths of the total pupil loadon any given day,

As a result, the apparent capacity of all the Valley Viewschools has been increased by one-third without any school construc-tion taking place.

The district, in informing the public of its intentions, tookthe position that the 45-15 Plan was "born of necessity." That"necessity" involved several factors;

I. The State of Illinois limits the indebtedness of thedistrict to 5% of its assessed valuation;

2. Industrial and commercial development in the districthas not kept pace with the population growth. Perpupil assessed valuation had declined sharply and thedistrict had exhausted its legal bonding power;

3. In addition to its rapid pupil growth in grades onethrough eight, the State of Illinois required allelementary districts to offer a half-day kindergartenprogram starting in 1970-71.

4. By the end of the 1969-70 school year, the districtwould already be operating its schools beyond desirablecapacities without kindergarten,

There were several courses of action open to the district:

1. Allow class sizes to continue to increase;

2. Lcase space in area churches;

3. Adopt a double shift or split-shift program;

4. Apply to the Illinois School Building Commissionfor special assistance;

5. Use the existing schools in the summer;

6. Combinations of these,

122- 116

Allowing class sizes to increase was not considered. Double-operation was considered an undesirable and temporary IlleaSUre,

not appropriate to a long-term problem.

Application was made to the Illinois School Building Commis-sion for an emergency construction program. The commission hadbeen created in 1957 to assist school districts in situations such asValley View found itself. The commission operates on legislativeappropriations which, although increasing over the past few years,have not been sufficient to prevent a backlog of applications fromaround the state.

The Valley View School District, then, adopted the 45-15 Planto allow use of schools in the summer starting June 30, 1970.

Valley View's recent growth, while extreme, is not a uniquestory. The district was formed in the early 1950's to consolidate theoperation of several small rural schools. The pace of transition fromrural to a suburban residential community is speeded by Interstate 55,which cuts diagonally across the district's 41.5 square mile area.

An interchange between 1-55 and Illinois Highway 53 effectivelyserves as the center of the district. Two incorporated villages,Bolingbrook and Romeoville, lie respectively on the north and southsides of 1-55 near the interchange. Residents of these new villageshave easy automobile access to Chicago industrial areas and arewithin forty minutes from the heart of Chicago's downtown Loop,

survey of representative housing subdivisions in the districtindicates that the homes are moderately priced compared to similarlylocated Chicago suburbs.

Table 1Price Range cr Housing Developments

Housing Development House Price Range Number of BedroomsHampton Park $21, 000 $30, 000 3 and 4Beaconridge 20, 990 26, 990 2 and 4(townhouses)Colonial Village 20, 990 26, 490 3Indian Oaks 23, 950 36, 500 3, 4 and 5Sugarbrook 19, 900 26, 900 3 and 4Winston Woods 28, 500 36, 000 3 and 4

Residential growth has far outstripped any complementaryindustrial or commercial development insofar as the school districttax base is concerned.

Table 2 shows the steep decline in the district's per-pupilassessed valuation. Of the $117 million valuation in 1969, some $50million was in residential property, another $50 million from a singleelectric power generator and the remaining 15% from other industrialand commercial properties.

117

123

The $50 million residential valuation represents roughly5, 000 homes each with a valuation of $3 0, 000. Each new home yields1, 3 pupils on the average to the elementary schools, Clearly the con-tinuing residential development will further erode the per taxbase,

Table 2Valley View District Wealth During the 1960's Per -Pupil

Assessed Pupil Enrollment AssessedSchool Year Valuation at Start of Year Valuation

1960-19611961-1962

$ 63,974,81065, 619, 359

9001, 400

$71, 08346,871

1962-1963 69, 495,162 1,875 37, 0641963-1964 87, 315, 323 2, 400 36, 3811964-1965 91, 671, 252 2, 913 31, 4701965-1966 95, 064, 591 3, 321 28, 6251966-1967 97, 747, 511 3, 768 25, 9411967-1968 112, 647, 949 4, 345 25, 9261968-1969 116, 715,891 4, 904 23, 8001969-1970 117, 34], 413 5, 522 21, 250

Since local property taxes support the major portion of thedistrict's total budget, the eroding tax base has required a steadyincrease in the local tax rates.

Table 3Valley View's Local Tax Rate in the 1960's

Combined Rate in DollarsYear per $100 of Assessed Valuation1960 $ .78801961 .87501962 .97201963 1.22401964 1.64501965 2.06801966 2.05601967 2.39401968 2, 42301969 2.4240

It should be noted here that local taxes in Illinois are paid onthe basis of property valuations for the calendar year prior_ to thestart of the school fiscal year. Taxes collected during the 1969-70school year were based on the 1968 valuation. In a rapidly-growingdistrict, this cash-flow lag is costly.

The State of Illinois during the past several years has increasedits share of the support of schools throughout the state. Revenuesreceived by Valley View during the 1969-70 fiscal year reflect a con-tinuing burden on local property in the tax base, hoWever. About

124-118-

two-thirds of the receipts are locally generated, About 75% of theexpenditures arc for education, 8% for building, 12% for bond retire-ment and interest, and 50/0 for other items,

Table 4Valley View Receipts by Major Source, 1969-70

SourceLocal taxes, educationalTax anticipation warrants

State-federal aidLunch (sales and aid)Interest on investmentsOther revenueStudent-community services

Total building fundBuilding and interest fund

Transportation

IMRF Fund

Site and construction

Working cash fund

Amount2, 978, 62.5.531, 063, 000, 00

1,936,741.98242, 173.6818,824.224, 452, 93

23, 553. 78

746,891.18877, 951.51

373,1)9.79

79,988.51

5, 586. 79

57, 424.26

$4, 041, 625. 53

2, 225, 746. 59

1, 624, 842, 69

373, 119.79

79,966.51

5, 586, 79

57, 424. 26

$8, 408, 334.16

The majority of state support is allocated to the schoolinstructional program on the basis of pupils' average daily attendance(ADA). This support formula takes into account the district's wealththrough a "qualifying amount" based on assessed valuation. Theformula ignores the tax rate set through local election.

An example of the current formula calculation and an explana-tion follow in Table 5.

125-119-

Table 5Illinois General State Aid Calculation

for Elementary Schools

Valley View 1969-70School. Year Calculation Explanation1, 1968 Assessed Valuation

$116, 715,891,00

2, ADA (best six months' average)5, 272. 45 pupils

3. State Guarantee (Line 2 X $520)$2, 741, A74, 00

(a) The average dailyattendance (ADA) is com-puted for each calendarmonth.(b) Of these, the six monthshaving the highest ADA arcselected.(c) Total pupil attendancedays in those best sixmonths divided by the totalnumber of days school wasin session during those sixmonths gives claimable ADAfor grades K thru 8.(Claimable ADA for grades9 Lhru 12 is multiplied bya weighting factor of 1.25).

Total claimable ADA forthe best six months ismultiplied by the statesupport level of $520 perpupil.

4. Qualifying nnoung (Line 1 X . 0090) However, each district is$1, 050, 443. CI subject to a "qualifying

amount" requirementwhich, for K-8 districtsis 0.903/4 of he prior year'sassessed valuation.

5. State aid amount payable(Line 3 minus Line 4)

$1, 691, 230, 99

126- 120 -

This qualifying amount issubtracted from the ''guarantee" to give the amountpayable by the state,

The amount payable by thestate is subject to certainadjustments. It is neverless, however, than $48for each claimable ADA

Pr OjeCtiril residential construction and a reasonable industrialgrowth a,:ross the 1970's, Valley View can expect a one-third increasein assessed valuati 03 t by 1975. By 1980 the assessed valuation shouldnear $200 million. This projection (in 1970 dollars) tram lates to aconstant annual valuation growth of 4. 75%.

Projecting a growth in assessed valuation based primarily onresidential construction obviously means a growth in the pupil popu-lation. A great deal of effort and speculation has been devoted toestimating the pace of development during the 1970's in the arca.Based on known development plans, there is no question the pacewill continue to be raised.

Based on data collected by the villages' planners, localofficials, and the school district, the following table gives a con-servative projection of this residential growth translated into pupilenrollment.

127- 12) -

464

i\D Cr)

Tab

le 6

Val

ley

Vie

w E

nrol

lmen

t Pro

ject

ion

Bol

ingb

rook

Are

aom

eovi

lle A

rea

Yea

rK

1- 6

7- 8

Tot

alK

67-

8T

otal

1970

-71

1971

-72

1972

-73

1973

-74

1974

-75

1975

-76

1976

-77

1977

-78

1973

-79

340

425

570

715

860

995

1, 1

051,

215

1, 3

20

1, 7

25

2, 3

753,

170

3, 9

85

4,80

05,

550

6,16

06,

770

7, 3

70

525

745

990

1, 2

45

1, 5

05

I, 7

401,

930

2, 1

152,

310

2, 5

90

3, 5

454,

730

5, 9

45

7, 1

658,

285

9, 1

9510

, 100

11, 0

00

450

500

550

565

585

645

705

775

840

2, 6

70

2,87

03,

070

3, 1

50

3, 2

50

3, 5

85

3, 9

454,

320

4, 6

90

315

875

935

985

1, 0

151,

120

1, 2

351,

335

1, 4

70

3, 9

35

4, 2

454,

555

4, 7

00

4, 3

505,

350

5, 8

85

6, 4

307,

000

Dis

tric

t TT

.tals

K1

6

790

925

1, 1

20

1, 2

80

I, 4

451,

640

I, 8

101,

990

2, 1

60

4, 3

955,

245

6, 2

.40

7, 1

358,

050

9, 1

3510

, 105

11, 0

9012

, 060

7 -

8T

ota

l

1, 3

40

1, 6

201,

925

2, 2

30

2, 5

20

2,86

03,

165

3, 4

503,

780

6, 5

25

7, 7

909,

ZS

5

10, 6

4512

, 015

13, 6

35

15, 0

8016

, 530

IS, 0

00

EXPENDITURES

Expenditures are shown in the reproduced pages from the1969-70 academic year "Report of Audit, Exhibit IV."

A summary of the audit is shown in Table 7. In it is showna comparison with the widely-used Cost of Education Index (CEI)maintained and published by the School Management Masazine.

The CEI distinguishes between "Net Current Expenditures"and non-current or non-direct expenditures. Net Current Expendi-tures (NCE) are those which can be considered as directly affectingthe quality of the current year's educational program. Not includedire NCE are capital outlay, debt service, transportation.

The CEI offers expenditure comparisons on the basis ofannual average daily attendance (ADA). Recognizing that a depart-mentalized junior high schcol program, such as the one operated inValley View, costs more to operate than self-contained elementaryclasses, the CPI applies a weighting factor of 1,3 to the ADA ofthese pupils.

The 1969-70 ADA in Valley View grades 1-6 was 4, 020. Ingrades 7-8 the 1, 200-pupil ADA multiplied by the weighting factor of1,3 gives 1, 560. Total weighted ADA for Valley View, then,5, 580 pupils.

Table 7Recap of 1969-70 Expenditures

Valley ViewAmount per

is

National MedianAmount

Category Expenditure Pupili5, 580) VoNCE per PupilAdministration $ 207, 698. 90 5. 7% $ 37. 22 3. 9% $ 22. 67Instruction 2, 888, 350. 21 79. 1% 517.64 77.2 449. 23Health 34,162,40 0.9% 6.09 0.6 3. 66Operation 389,731.57 10.7% 69.85 8. 7 50.91Maintenance 33, 118, 51 0, 9% 5.94 3, 0 17.19Fixed charges 80, 818, 40 2. 2% 14.48 6. 3 36.42Other (Attendance) 16, 361.95 0.4% Z. 93 0. 3 1, 59

Total NCE $3, 650, 242, 02 100.9% $654.15 100.0'0 $581.61

129123

EUIENTARY SCHOOL DIISYMM:(196Romeoville, Illinois,

STATEMIT OY CASH D)SIAISENTS

1 X111 D1'1'

For the Fiscal(With Cumparisons

Year Ended June 30, 1970

to Estiated Di5,111".semcnt0

EstimatedDisbursements Disbursements

Actual.

(Over) UnderEtimi,ted

Educational. Fund

Administration:Salaries $ 139,584.75 $ 135,567.84 $ 4,016.9

Contractual services 51,348.54 47,416.90 3,931.6

Supplies 7,579.00 8,100.96 ( 521.9

Travel 21,359.00 11,409.32 9,949.6

Other administrative expense 2,700.00 3,626,0

Total administration $ ,228971,_2.9______5473.96$___202,268,98 $____21,0023

Instruction:Salaries:Principals and assistant

principals $ 145,400.00 $ 149,142.50 $( 3,742.5Consultants and supervisors 112,460.00 92,687.65 20,772.3Teachers - Elementary 1,831,000.00 1,844,701.74 ( 13,701.7

Substitute teachers 24,200.00 35,658.42 ( 11,456.4

Other instructional staff 122,119.42 128,469.51. ( 6,350.0Secretaries and clerks 98,569.70 89,505.07 9,064,6Teachers - Aides 32,615.60 38,271.80 ( 5,656,2

Other salariesTotal instruction salaries $ 2.027,01§,..

Other instruction:Contractual services $ 253,645.91 $ 230,514.16 $ 23,131.7

Textbooks 79,208.29 63,274.53 15,933.7

Library and audiovisual 61,904.20 53,785.63 8,118.3

Instructional supplies 106,494.67 84,971.96 23,522.9

Travel 13,200,00 9,363.65 3,836.1Tuition paid 10,000.00 9,262.52 737.4Other instructional expense 4,445.00 5,241.56 ( 796.5

Total other instruction $y 530,898,21 $ 456 414 45

Total instruction

Attendance:Salaries $ 15,297.11 $ 15,260.81 $ 16.

Contractual services 100.00 100.0

Supplies 800.00 336.64 463.1

Travel 800.00 744.50 55.5

Other 600.00 600,C

Total at _11,597..11 $____16361,95

130- -.

ELEN:17NTAI!Y SCHOOL DISTMCI NO. 96

RoNcovifle,_1))ino!s

STATEMINf 01' CASH 01S1'..T,E7,1TS

For the Fir,cal Year Ended .111,:. 30, )970,

(With CoJTdrisons to Estillint(d Di:;i)orcw,mLs)

]

(c:ont d )

Educatjonal_Fnd (cont'd)

EstimatedDishin.sements Disbnrsem:.nts

Actual(Over) UnderEstimated

Health:Salaries $ 33,171.00 $ 32,105.57 $ 1,065.43

Contractual services 240.00 49.50 190.50

Supplies 3,7/0.00 1,327.70 412.30

Travel 900.00 679.63 220.37

Other 200.00 29Total health P

Operation:Salaries $ 232,983.80 $ 232,088.39 $ 845.41

Contractual services 37,000.00 12,835,57 4,164.43Supplies 33,000.00 24,476.35 8,523.65

Heating 45,000.00 40,291.67 4,708.33

Utilities 65,554.57 79,567.72 ( 14,013.15)

Travel 2,000.00 469.72 1,530.28

Other 3_,000.00 2.15 2,997,85

Total operation $ 398,458.37 $ p 8,756.80

Maintenance:Contractual services $ 18,407.16 $ 29,465.89 $( 11,058.73)

Supplies 5,000.00 3,625.52 1,374.48

Other 500.00 22.10 472,90

Total maintenance

Fixed charges:Employer's Share of Retirement

Systems 1,000.00 $ 487.50 $ 512.50

Insurance 44,700.00 38,627.43 6,072.57

Rental (of equipment) 2,500.00 1,185.57 1,314.43

Interest on anticipationwarrants 25,000.00 40,517.90 15,517.90)

Other interest 6,500.00 6,500.00Total fixed charges ._._1/1182±_g)

131-125-

YLEMIATARY SCa0L D.15;11:JCT NO 96

311inoi,1

STAUMNT OF CASH DlShUttSFUNTSFor the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,_1970,

(With Comporisons_y_o Estimated Disburbownts)

Educational Fundjcont!d

f::X111,81ILJV

coat ,d)

Actual

Estimated (Over) Under

Disbursements Disbursements Estimated

Student and Ccumunity Services:Summer School:

Salaries $ 15,280.00 $ 10,913.32Contractual services 400.00 650.00Materials and supplies 6,219.25 1,421.09

Travel 1,680.00 1,780.00

Other 544.00 45.00

4,366.68( 250.00)

4,798.16( 100.00)

499.00

Total summer school

Athletic program:

2 $ 9,3]3.8,4

Salaries 7,810.00 $ 6,270.00 $ 1,50.00Contractual services 7,220.00 5,606.00 11614.00

Total athletic program §:1J118W;:iici

Textbooks (for rental or sale)Contractual services _1,000,00 $______

Total textbooks $ ).,06:66 $

_703.29_703.29

$ 703.29

Lunch program:Salaries 87,000.00Contractual services 3,000.00Food and milk 175,000.00Supplies 7,000.00

Travel 1,000.00Other 1,021:00

Total lunch program :60

Other student and communityservices:

Salaries $ 17,400,00 $ 13,205.33

Contractual services 766.00

Travel 1,400.00 1,169.65Olier expenses

Total other student andconrwuity services

Total Student and CommunityServices

_____1>92f ___

1.__33!,y6!2

1321Z6 -

_2_7_M3M§.

$ 13,154.711,288.39

30,789.64941.32)876.21

(

1_,W24.57)

$ 73,835.291,711.61

144,210.367,941.32

123.79

F 231,0094 $_142 66

$ 4,194,67( 766.00)

230.35

Eli tiTALY SCi001 1)7.1

R(weovillc Illinois

STATENC,NT OF CAS!! DlSflURSCM:isFor theFip.cal Year J;imicd 31ec ,1970

EX1111;71 7V

(con(Y)

(Ijitil_Comparions

Rducationnl Fund (cont 'd)

Capital outlay:

to Estimated Dibursements)

EstimatedDisbursements Disbursements

(Over)

ActualUnder

Estiroated

Additional equipment $ 59,887.59 $ 92,639.62 $( 32,752.03)

Provision for contingencies andtransfers $ 287 628.90 $ .00 $. 28L,428.90

4,379,52t.99 $ 3,976,219.58

Other disbursements:Redep-Ttion of 1968 tax

anticipation warrants 700,000.00

Redemption of 1969 taxanticipation warrants 1 063 000,00

Total other disbursetwnts $ 1 76;.3000.00

Total Educational Fund Disbursements 5.,737,2"58

133'- 127 -

ELEHENTAItY SCHOOL MSTHICT NO, 96 EXH 11'x) T 1

Romeovi ) 1 e 11) noi s (5._Pn")

STATEMENT OF CASH DISI1MSEMNTSFor the Eiseal Year Ended tune 30 1970

(With Comparisons to Estimate:.] Disburscments)

Building FundOperation:

TravelOther operating expense

Total operation

Maintenance:Contractual service

Total maintenance

EstimatedDisbursements Disbursements

Actual(Over) UnderEstimated

400.00 $ 100.00 $ 300.0

600.00 101.97

$

31600.00 $ 1,018.96 $ 2 581_0$ 1,018.96 $J 2,581,0

Fixed charges:Insurance $ 35,000.00 $ 26,255.50 $ 8,744.5

Rental 2,000.00 2,000,0

Interest on tax anticipationwarrants 10,000.00 4,959,35 5,040,6

Total fixed charges $______Ab_000,po $ 31,2.14,85 $____15,y85.1

Capital outlay:Site acquisitions and

improvementsNew buildings and improvementsAdditional equipment

Total capital outlay

Provision for contingencies

Redemption of 19GS taxanticipation warrants

Redemption of 1969 taxanticipation warrants

Total Building Fund Disbursements

$ 36,200.00257,5%5.00100,000_00

$ 3931775,00

$ 24,091.47 $ 12,108.!

290,689.83 ( 33,114.!_100,000,(

314,781,30 $____711,9Y.1.2

$ ____51864,00

P $ 347,217.08 $ 104,021.(

30,000.00

19moo,op

P

(Exhibit 11)

EXH1P1'1 3V

izenwovilic2

STAIWIENF OF CASH 1!ISM;FEM1'XTi4FortIleFiscal Year Ended ,lone 30,_ 1970

(yithCcr?vatisons to Estimated Di::bprreuents)

Building :Bond and Interest Fund

Estimated

$ 227,419.091,000.00

$ 207,t48.84!,45.06

Actual(Over) Under

$ 19,570.25454.94

Fixed charges;Interest on bondsService charge on bonds

Total fixed charges

Bond principal retired $ p 280,000.00 5,000.00)

Total Building Bond and InterestFund Disbursements $ 503,09.09. $ 488.,n3.90 $ 15:025.19

(Exhibit II)

Transkortation FundOperation:

Salaries 54,500.00 49,298.89 5,201.11

Contractual services 14,395.22 ( 14,395.22)

Supplies 14,500.00 13,822.79 677.21

Travel 400.00 123.40 276.60

Other 1,000,00 _857,13Total operation T-170400L00 W-7,383.17)

Maintenance:

_Z7,783.17

Salaries 9,000.00 7,300.33 1,699:67

Contractual services 8,000.00 1,202.46 6,797.54

Supplies 2,000.00 1,973.41 26.59

Travel 200.00 65.60 134.40

Other 1 000.00 987.00

Total maintenance $ no,o0 10, S!;!4.60

Fixed charges:Insurance 7,080.00 $ 7,380.00 $( 30[1.00;

Rental of equipment 21.00 ( 21.00:

Interest on tax anticipationwarrants 5,000.00 3,009.35 1,990,65

OtherTotal fixed charges

1,920.00----jcppvoci

90.00 1,830.00

135-129-

FLMINTARYSCHOn D1ST];1CT!:o. 9C Exit] 11 1 IV

1.11i001;,

STATIITNT OF CAW 1lstxecr4Fvm,For the Fiscal Year i111 :d June 30, 1970

t Comp r .son s_ o.r L i t u lisemen

Transportation Fund (cont'd)Capital cutlay - Additional

equipment

Provision for contingencies

Total Transportation Fund

Redemption of 1968 taxanticipation warrants

Redemption of 1969 taxanticipation warrants

Total Transportation Fund

Estimated (Over) Under

Disbursements Disbursements Estimated

A__ 57,000,0Q 2cL $ _4,459,57

$ 1000,00 $______ .00 $ 1,poo,op

oo,00 $ 151,378.75

70,000.00

75,000:00

(Exhibit /1)

IMRF FundDistrict's share. of DIU and FICA _A52,999..00

(Exhibit 11)

Site and_ConstructionFundCapital outlay: Brook View and

Ridge View

New building and improvementsAdditional. equipment

Total capital outlay, Brook Viewand Ridge View

Capital outlay: West ViewNew building and improvements

Total capital outlay, West View

Total Site and Construction FundDisbursements

$ 417,505.1739,217.90

$ 358,241.17

$__ 358_,241,17

$ 287.84$ 28/.84

358 529 01

$ 59,264.0C

$ .0(

A 98 481 91

A 456,223,07

A 287.84

$ 287.84

.$ 45"/ 0;0 91

(Exhibit 11)

136- 130 -

PROJEC'HONS AND CONSIDERATION

Well over half of the 41.5 square mile area of the Valley ViewDistrict is suitable for immediate development. The area alreadyhaving residential development plans underway presents a formidablepupil growth picture for the district.

Estimates of that growth, based on the most apparent develop-ment plans, show enrollment more than triple its current level by1980. It is not expected, however, that industrial growth will keepa favorable pace with residential development. The district isorganized to serve a bedroom community on a long-term basis. Taxrate:, and expenditures reflect this situation.

In projecting the economic and population growth of the district,this study has taken conservative positions based on findings of variouslocal and regional studies. There is little question that these projec-tions will be realized. There is a great deal of question, however,whether the actual 1980 community will he in any way comparable tothe 1970 version. An attempt to describe all the potential socio-economic variables that might affect the area would require muchspeculation.

Most assurance probably can be given to the assumption thatthe local tax dollar will carry over half of school expenditures, thatresidential values will increase in proportion, and that people willkeep coming, Even these could change in ten years, however.

There is activity underway that suggests new staff organiza-tion will be developed in the district during the next three to fouryears. The nature of that organization will likely cause shifts inprofessional staff assignments between teaching and supervisorycategories.

The 45-15 Plan, however, has not changed the intent of thedistrict to maintain relative pupil-staff levels which have emergedduring the past five years. Ignoring the future effect of possiblestaff organization changes, this study has adopted the followingmodel of pupil-staff ratios as characteristic of the district's educa-tional operation,

A teaching staff "unit'. is 180 days per yearregardless of the actual number of days an individualteacher has contracted, (Three teachers working 240days each is the equivalent of four teachers each work-ing 180 days.) A pupil unit is one pupil in full-timemembership, kindergarten being counted as one-halfunit since attendance is for one-half day.

- 131 -

137

total full-time pupils......18 . 5 total professional staff

11111 -time _pupils in oracles 1 -64-

21

teE.ching staff in grades 1-6 26

17 pupils in grades 7-8 e 17.8

200 4

total full-time pupilsadministrative and

sipervisory staff 250

138- 132 -

Tab

le 8

App

licat

ion

of A

ssum

ptio

ns to

197

8 -7

9 Y

ear

Ac.

ial P

upil

Elr

ollm

ent

AD

A a

t 95%

Wei

ghte

d A

DA

Full-

time

Enr

ollm

ent

(CE

I Fo

rmul

a)K

2, 1

601,

025

1, 0

251.

, 080

1-6

12, 0

6011

, 455

11, 4

5512

, 060

7-8

3,78

03,

590

4,66

53,

780

18, 0

0017

, 145

16, 9

20

Fina

ncia

l Pro

ject

ion

T.

Cat

egor

yPe

r-pu

pil C

ost

Ext

ensi

onA

dmin

3s'ra

tion

$ 33

. 35

$53

1, 7

85.7

5In

stru

ctio

n51

3.72

8,30

7, 7

29.4

0A

ttend

ance

2.93

50, 2

34.8

5

CA

D

CD

Hea

lthO

pera

tion

Mai

ntei

ance

and

Rep

air

6.11

70. 5

97.

43

104,

755

.95

1, 2

10, 2

65.5

512

7, 3

87. 3

3Fi

xed

Cha

rges

21.9

237

3,81

2.40

Tot

al N

CE

$656

.05

$11,

247

, 977

. 25

II.

Cat

egor

yPe

rson

nel:

Prof

essi

onal

Adm

inis

trat

ion

$ 15

. 50

$26

5, 7

47. 5

0T

each

er s

alar

ie s

336.

29

5, 7

65, 6

92. 0

5O

ther

pro

fess

iona

l sal

arie

s68

. 48

1, 1

74, 0

89.6

0O

ther

sal

arie

s (i

nclu

ding

ret

irem

ent)

90. 2

01,

546

, 479

.00

Tot

al P

erso

nnel

$510

, 47

$ 8,

752

, 008

.15

Tab

le 8

, App

licat

ion

of A

ssum

ptio

ns to

197

8-79

Yea

r (c

ontin

ued)

Per-

pupi

l Cos

tE

xten

sion

Non

- P

erso

nnel

:D

istr

ict o

ffic

e ex

pens

eT

extb

ooks

, tea

chin

g m

ater

ials

, etc

.O

ther

inst

ruct

iona

l exp

ense

Hea

ting

and

cool

ing

Oth

er u

tiliti

esFi

xed

char

ges

All

othe

r ex

pens

es

10.1

437

. 06

48.9

97.

22

14. 4

113

.15

14. 6

1

Tot

al N

on-P

erso

nnel

145.

58

TO

TA

L N

ET

CU

RR

EN

T E

XPE

ND

ITU

RE

656.

Ob

173,

850

. 30

635,

393

. 55

839.

933-

5512

3, 7

86.9

0Z

47, 0

59.4

522

5, 4

56. 7

525

0, 4

88.4

5

2, 4

95, 9

69.1

0$1

1, 2

47, 9

77. 2

5

Tab

le 9

Com

pari

son

of 1

969-

70 w

ith 1

978-

79 E

xpen

ditu

re P

roje

ctio

n

Star

t-ye

ar a

sses

sed

valu

atio

n$1

17. 3

41, 4

13. 0

0$1

78, 1

71, 2

35. 0

0T

otal

net

cur

rent

exp

endi

ture

s$

3, 6

50, 2

42.0

2$

11, 2

47, 9

77. 2

5W

eig1

ited

AD

A (

CE

I Fo

rmul

a)5,

580

pup

ils17

, 145

pup

ilsN

CE

per

pup

il$

654.

15e- 4,

656.

05A

sses

sed

valu

atio

n pe

r pu

pil

$21

, 029

. 00

S10

, 392

. 00

NC

E a

s %

of

valu

atio

n3.

I%

6. 3

%

Stat

e A

id a

nd L

ocal

Sup

port

(cu

rren

t for

mul

a)Pr

ior-

year

ass

esse

d va

luat

ion

AD

A e

stim

ate

(sta

te f

orm

ula)

Stat

e gu

aran

tee

Les

s qu

alif

ying

am

ount

$116

, 715

, 891

.00

$170

, 091

, 870

. 00

5, 2

72 p

upils

16, 1

90 p

upils

$2,

741

, 674

. 00

$8,

418

, 800

. 00

$1,

050

, 443

. 01

S1,

530

,826

.83

Stat

e ai

d am

ount

pay

able

$1,

691

, 230

. 99

$6,

887

, 973

.17

Am

ount

req

uire

d fr

om lo

cal t

ax to

mee

t net

cur

rent

exp

endi

ture

$1,

971

, 703

. 59

$4,

360

, 004

. 08

Loc

al a

mou

nt a

s %

of

prio

r-ye

ar v

alua

tion

1. 6

8%2.

56%

Tax

rat

e in

crea

se r

equi

red

over

nin

e-ye

ar p

erio

d (1

970

dolla

rs)

52%

The construction of a school building in Illinois is clearlyexpected to be a local matter insofar as state Jaw is concerned,Local voters determine, through referendum, whether building bondswill be issued. Debt is encourage by statutes which restrict theschool district's ability to accumulate cash reserves.

In Illinois a constitutional provision limits the indebtedness ofa school district to 5% of assessed valuation and requires repaymentof debt and interest within twenty years. Service of bonded indebted-ness can be made through a special tas levy, not subject to raterestrictions imposed on certain other school levies,

No formula support whatever is given by the state for con-struction. In extreme cases, competitive support may be availablethrough the Illinois Building Commission. The conurission wasformed to assist school districts which reach their legal debt limit.

Valley View has incurred new bonded indebtedness repeatedlyduring the 1960's in its attempt to provide adequate classroom spacefor its growing pupil enrollment, Tabic 10 summarizes the picture.

Table 10Valley View Bonded Debt in the :960's

SchoolYear

Value of BondsOutstanding atStart of Year

RetiredDuringYear

IssuedDuringYear

InterestIncurredDuring Year

Totai ofPrincipaland Interest

61 -62 $1, 145, 000 $ 30, 000 $ 43,805 $ 73,80562-63 1,115, 000 50, 000 1, 490, 000 40, 831 90,83163-64 2, 555, 000 50, 000 107, 299 157, 29964-65 2, 505, 000 50, GOO 85, 501 135, 50165-66 2, 455, 000 100, 000 1, 950, 000 148, 095 248, 09566-67 4, 305, 000 105, 000 ______ 144, 630 249, 63067 -68 4, 200, 000 170, 000 850, 000 138, 545 308, 54568-69 4, 880, 000 250, 000 675, 000 196, 232 446, 23269-70 5, 305, 000 280,000 208, 393 488, 39370-71 5, 025, 000

The issue of $675, 000 bonds in 196849 temporarily exhaustedthe power of the district to incur debt at a tame when enrollment growthwas increz.sing at a more rapid pace than ever before.

With assessed valuation growing at, say, $5 Million per year,the district would be empowered to incur new debt in an annual amountof $250, 000 on the sole basis of increased property value, Thatamount, plus a like amount gained through retirement of old debt wasjust not enough to construct needed classrooms during the 1970's,

141- 135 -

One possible solution, a more rapid debt retirement rate,was considered to have too detrimental an effect on current taxes.Debt retivenient and interest payments have clearly bee Orr C majorbudget items in Valley View already.

The State of Illinois had Liken steps ir. 1957 toward assuringthat school, buildings would be available in districts without sufficientassessed valuation to carry necessary debt. The commission con-siders applications from districts which can demonstrate that expectedenrollments will increase beyond their capacity to provide space.

The commission does not have, as yet, the authority to issuebonds itself but relies on the state legislature for appropriationsfrom current state revenue. These appropriations have not beensufficient to cover all eligible applications although there is evidencethat future legislative sessions make more adequate appropriations.

When an application can be accepted, the commission constructsthe needed schools on the basis of projected average daily attendance.The district in question, through voter approval of a referendum,levies a tax used to lease the schools from the state. At least 6% ofthe project cost must be paid in rental each year until the total pro-ject cost has been paid. At this time, title to the school buildingsreverts from the state to the school district. No interest is chargedon the project funds.

In 1970 the Illinois School Building Commission approved anapplication from Valley View for a construction plogram which isnow underway. Although the project will provide some sixty-fivenew classroom spaces, at completion of construction enrollmentgrowth will have more than filled the new buildings.

Table 11Summary of Valley View Construction

Number of Pupils

Minirrinm Stated Maximum1970 -7] Nun1hcr of Operating De sign Emergency

Existing Schools Grade s Clas sr ooms Level Capacity Level.Park View K-6 42 1, 092 1, 200 1, 540Valley View K-6 31 806 900 1,150Ridge View K-4 16 416 480 575North View K-5 30 780 1, 000 1, 080Brook View K-4 16 416 480 575West View 7-8 (38) 1, 000 1, 200 1,450

Current Total 5, 260 6, 370

142- 136

Table ll, Sturnnary of Valley V3C\V Construction (ccmtinued)Minimum Stated Mzlximum

Construction Number of Operating Design Finer gene yUnderWay Classrooms Level Capacity LevelOak View (35) 900 1, 100 1, 300Ridge View addition (15) 390 420 525Brook View addition (15) 390 420 525

New Space Total 1, 940 2, 350

In 1972, with the completion of current building projects,Valley View's instructional facilities will be organized as follows:

Kindergarten*.Elementary (1 -6)Junior High (7-8)

Total

De sign Emergency730 800

5, 270 6, 4701, 200 1, 450

'/, 200 8, 720

*Kindergarten pupils attend half-day sessions. These pupil figuresare full-time equivalents; i.e., half of the total kindergarten pupilsactually served.

The most obvious effect of the 45-15 calendar is on the abilityof the Valley View District to provide instructional space for itsgrowing pupil population. In order to translate pupil growth intobuilding needs, this study will adopt building models based on recentand current policies of the district.

Current district policy is to provide "neighborhood" schoolsfor pupils in kindergarten through grade six. Seventh and eighthgrade pupils attend a central junior high which is organized on adepartmental basis. District administrators expect this policy tocontinue except that a second junior high would be built in a new loca-tion to minimize transportation costs.

When the pupil load makes it impossible to adhere to a neigh-borhood assignment policy, the district reassigns fifth and sixthgrade pupils to balance class sizes. The district apparently considersdistrict-wide class site balancing more important than preservingneighborhood locations. When necessary, pupils are transported inorder to achieve class size balance,

Although the superintendent admits a preference for smallerbuildings, the district has chosen to construct schools with capacitiesof 1, 000 and more pupils, Current construction plans continue thispractice.

143- 137 -

The building models' cost estimates arc stated in terms of1970-71 dollars, al; arc other cost projections in this study.

Construction of a new school is currently underway in ValleyView to house pupils in kindergarten through grade six. The projcctis being supervised by the Illinois School Buildinp, Commission whichwill lease the facility to the district under a 16-2/3 year no-interestpayout plan.

This special arrangement is provided school districts unableto meet critical classroom needs because of a constitutional pro-vision limiting bonded indebtedness to 5% of assessed valuation. Thecommission's work with school building projects makes it a'mostreliable source of information on building costs.

The commission calculates costs for the new school as follows:

Projected average daily attendanceClassrooms needed at 32 students per roomCost of building at $31,800 per classroomSquare foot cost limitMinimum total area allowableSitework - nominalMoveable equipment at $1, 000 per classroom

1, 12535

$1, 113, 000$18, 55

60, 000 sq. ft.$33, 390$35, 000

Thus the total project cost is $1, 181, 390, The commission'sstatutory formula assumes' housing a pupil enrollment of 1, 200.District policy suggests thiE design capacity is overstated by some100 to 150 pupils. This study will use 1,100 pupils as the designcapacity and 1, 300 pupils as maximum under emergency conditions.

In 1966 Valley View occupied its first junior high schoolbuilding. The building is of advanced design consisting of four cit.-,cular pods surrounding a central cafetorium -library area, One podhouses the gymnasium and one the theater-music area, The othertwo pods each contain classrooms surrounding a resource center,

Thirty-eight room-units are organized to include areas for:

Design Purpose Number of Room-unitsBusiness educationScienceLanguage laboratoriesHome economicsindustrial artsGraphicsArts and craftsVocal musicIn musicGeneral use

144138

2322

31

31

219

38

Total floor space of the building is 114, 31 ? ;,(ptPre feet. Totalproject cost was $1, 555, 612 including fixed equipment except locker,ttand home economics. Siteworl: and paving were also included.

The stated design capacity of the junior high school is 1, 200pupils. A good deal of flexibility is included. Although the buildinghas housed as many as 1,460 pupils, the junior high principal con-siders 1, 000 pupils the ideal load and 1,100 pupils as maximum forthe programs he operates.

The Illinois School Building Commission calculates a con-struction cost escalation factor of 32.5% in this area since January,1967. Application of this factor to the junior high school project up-dates the building cost to $2, 061, ZOO exclusive of movable equipment.

Before the completion of the current building program, ValleyView will begin plans for still additional space. These future planswill differ markedly from those required by the traditional schoolyear calendar,

debt,year

Year

If the district were legally capable of assuming the resultingTable 12 compares the building program under the traditional

to that required by the 45-15 Plan.

Table 12Alternative Building Programs, 1972-1979

Traditional Year 45-15 Plan1972 Junior high on emergency

schedule1973 Occupy second junior

high school; occupyseventh elementaryschool

1974

1975 Occupy eighth elementaryschool; occupy ninth ele-mentary school

1976 Occupy third junior highschool; operate sixth gradein junior high building

1977

1978 Occupy tenth elementaryschool; occupy eleventhelementary school

1979 Occupy twelfth elemen-tary school

145-139-

Occupy second juniorhigh school

Operate sixth gradeprogram in junior high

Occupy seventh elemen-tary school

Occupy eighth elementaryschoolOccupy third junior highschool for grades 6, 7, 8

Occupy ninth elementaryschool

Table 13 compares the debt assumption flicl debt servicerequirements of these two building programs, For simplicity, !becomparison assumes a 5-1/2% interest rate and equal Et nn u 1 pay'

ntS The district's bonded indebtedness as of July 1, 1970,stands at $5, 025, 000, Future service of this debt is not included,nor is the debt to be incurred as a result of the present building pro-gram,

Table 13Schedule of Debt Issues and Service Requirements

SchoolYear1972

Traditional School Year

Debt Retired Is suedOutstanding at During DuringStart of Year Year Year

$3, 180, 000

InterestIncurredDuring Year$174

Total ofPrincipaland InterestPaid

1973 $3, 180, 000 $ 91, 200 $174, 900 $266, 1001974 3, 088, 799 96, 216 2, 360, 000 169,833 266, 1001975 5, 352, 58 3 169, 191 2, 000, 000 294, 39:?, 463, 5831976 7, 183, 392 235, 8 55 395, 08 6 630, 9421977 6, 947, 536 248, 8 27 2, 360, 000 382, 114 630, 9421978 9, 058, 708 330, 196 1, 180, 000 498, 228 828, 4251979 9, 905, 512 382, 19S 544, 968 927, 16G1980 9, 526, 313

45-15 Plan1972 2, 000, 0001973 2, 000, 000 57, 358 110, 000 167, 3581974 1, 942, 641 60, 51 3 106,845 167, 3581975 1, 882, 127 63,841 1, 180, 000 103, 517 167, 3581976 2, 998, 28 6 101, 194 1, 180, 000 164, 905 266, 1001977 4, 077, 091 140, 601 2, 000, 000 244, 240 364, 8411978 5, 936, 490 205, 693 1, 180, 000 326, 506 532, 2001979 6, 910, 796 250,848 380, 093 630, 9421980 6, 659, 948

Table ) 4Project Savings Under 45-15 Plan

SchoolYear19731974

Schedule ofAnnual Interest Savings

$ 64, 90063, 038

Schedule ofDebt Retirement Savings

$ 33, 84135, 70Z

1975 190, 875 105, 3491976 230, 180 134, 6611977 157, 874 108,2251978 171, 722 124, 5021979 I6.4,874 131, 350

$1, 043, 46.5146

$673, 634

- 140 -

Table 15Recap of Alternative 1972-1979 Building Programs

New junior high schoolsNew elementary schools

Traditional Yea....26

45-15 Plan23

Difference

Total cost of building $11, 080, 000 $7, 540, 000 $3, 540, 000

Interest paid on newbuilding bands duringperiod 2, 459, 574 1, 416, 108 1, 043, 465

Principal retired duringperiod 1, 553, 686 880, 051 673, 634

Debt outstanding at endof period 9, 526, 313 6, 659, 948 2,866, 365

DEVELOPMENT AND "START-UP" COSTS

Converting a school district calendar from the traditional yearto an all-year operation obviously requires a great deal of planning anddevelopment activity. Valley View, as the first district in the state toattempt such a task, carried a greater burden of time and cost thenwould be expected in other districts. The major portion of the plan-ning effort, however, was borne by the regular administrative staffto the exclusion of other planning projects which might have normallyoccupied their time and energies.

There is no way to quantify the amount of administrative costwhich should be charged to 45-15 planning. One assistant superin-tendent spent the major portion of his time supervising the develop-ment project. An instructional supervisor, designated as directorof research, spent virtually full time in various development activities.Another supervisory-level staff member worked with teachers andteacher-contract details for the better part of eight months.

The development task must, however, be viewed as a totalteam effort which occupied the primary attention of the superintendentand his staff for some two years. Virtually every administrativedecision made during that period was weighed against the coming ofthe 45-15 Plan. Virtually all planning sessions and "bull sessions"on and off the job had the C.35 Plan as a topic.

Whether this concentration interfered with or enhanced thenormal administrative activities in the district is debatable. Evidenceseems to favor the latter position.

147- 141

Identifiable costs that can be din-203y attributed to the 45-15Plan development are the so:

1, Air conditioning All of the district schoDls wereair conditioned when constructed except for theoriginal (1954) 31 -room Valley View School anda 24-room section of Park View School. The districthad sufficient funds to air condition both schools butdecided instead to completely replace the heatingsystem at Valley View with an all-year system ofheating and cooling. The cost of that system was$200, 000.

The 24-room section of Park View will be air conditionedbefore the summer of 1971 at a cost of approximately$80, 000.

Air conditioning is also being provided in severalauxiliary areas of the other schools at a cost ofabout $47, 000,

2, Professional Staff Committee - When the district haddeveloped a definitive course of action, a work groupwas formed from the pzofessional staff. Members ofthis group were paid $5.00 per hour and served overa period of seven months. The total outlay for thiseffort was $3, COO,

3, Consultant Expenses The district was greatly con-cerned about the variety of administrative detailsthat would require attention in the development andimplementation of the 45-15 Plan, An outside con-sultant was commissioned to supervise the schedulingtasks and perform other administrative duties during1969 and 1970. The total cost of the consultant con-tract was $17,900 over the two-year period.

4, Funded Activities - Several projects relating to thedevelopment of the 45-15 Plan were initiated as aresult of outside funding, These included:

a, A feasibility study supported by the U. S. Officeof Education through the small grant programadministered by the regional office of HEW.The grant was $10, 000.Several small receipts from the State of Illinoisto assist in the preparation of informationmaterials, These totaled approximately $1, 500.The research grant from the U, S. Office of Education Which supported the design of furtherresearch and (valuation to be conducted in thedistrict and the preparation of this report, Thatgrant amounted to $43,800.

- 142 -148

A demonstration project conducied uilder Title111 ]?Si A to handle visitors to the district.Support of this prc>ject through Junc, 1971,amounts to $19,000.

c, Further evaluation activities, beginningNovember 1, 1970, conducted under support.from the Office of the Superintendent of PublicInstruction in the amount of $16,000 throughJune 30, 1971,

]n all cases of funded projects, of course, additional.time is required by the district staff in supervisionand participation,

In addition to the development costs mentioned above, there .were other costs less easily quantified which were one-time or start-up expenditures,

Teacher Salary Cash Flow

Many districts, Valley View included, follow the practice ofissuing teacher paychecks over twelve months rather than just duringthe :-egular school year, The total annual salary is, of course, thesame, but the teacher is receiving salary on a regular basis and thedistrict has use of a portion of the salary money into the summer.

Since the 45-15 Plan began its operation in June rather thanSeptember of the 1970-71 school year, the new year payroll for someteachers began in July, 1970. This represented no actual increasein 'salary outlays but the accelerAted cash flow should be viewed ascosting the district something in interest on short-term debt (taxanticipation warrants), The actual case, however, was that the Stateof Illinois agreed to advance state aid payments to help finance thiscash flow lag,

First Summer Staff Assignments

The plan chosen by the district to phase in the four pupil groupscaused some inefficiencies in staff assignments during the first thirtydays of school, From June 30 to July 20 only one-fourth of the pupils(one-third of the new service level) were in school, A correspondingnumber of classroom teachers returned to work with these pupils but,in certain cases, teaching specialists and supervisory staff were"under-utilized" in terms of the pupil-teacher ratio. Of course, thebuildings were open and operating as if all pupils were present,Between July 21 and August 10, the pupil load was at two-thirds ofthe new operating /eve/ and c.rt August 11 the third group of pupilsarrived to bring the pupil load to capacity,

Although costs can be attributed to the under-utilization ofstaff in this first summer, the district believes that adjustmentperiod was valuable, not only to the smooth operation of the 45-15

149143

Plan, but to the educational program in general, Principals reportedthat they had an opportunity to work with their teachers more effec-tively than ever is possible under a traditional September schoolopening. Preparation for the new school year w. considered unus-ually satisfactory.

Opening an Enla,:ged School_System

If a school district enlarges its physical capacity by any means,there will always be an immediate per-pupil cost increase, The45-15 Plan, in effect, provided the district with two new 30-roomschool buildings. This new space was provided because it was badlyneeded, and the district chose to staff and utilize the new space assoon as it became available.

Obviously, when the 1969-70 school year closed on June 8without that space in use, per-pupil costs were less than the 1970-71year cost level which reflects the additional space utilization. Inthis respect, the 45-15 Plan is not different from, say, opening theequivalent new buildings. The school district determines to whatextent the new facilities will be immediately utilized.

Had the extra space actually been provided by two new build-ings, of course, certain costs would have been far greater. Two newprincipals, two office staffs, and two custodial crews would have beenhired. The new buildings would have required core facilities to servethe classrooms.

It is important to financial analysis of the 45-15 Plan to com-pare this method of enlarging the school system capacity againstother methods of accomplishing the same end effect rather than tocompare the 45-15 system against the smaller-capacity system itreplaces.

On the other hand, it must be noted that these differences arcof a short-term nature. Tie two new principals that were "not hired"at the outset of the 45-15 Plan's operation may appear in the district'sadministrative organization as instructional supervisors or districtoffice professional staff within a short period of time. It can beexpected that the resulting staff organization will be more effectiveand valuable.

In summary, what initial costs must be borne to develop andimplement the 45-15 Plan? These fall into three categories:

1, The cost of people to be devoted to the planning effort.This will include administrators, faculty groups, andoutside cons,thants. In Valley View this total costwas probably some fifty to sixty thousand dollars overa two-year period or about ten dollars per pupil.Other distric ts, certainly within Illinois, can nowexpect an ea ;kr and less expensive job.

- 144

150

2. During the implementation pc:yirld, costs of prepara-tion and phasing-in. These ranged, under the ValleyView approach, from extra custodial time during Juneto extra teacher costs before pupil loads reachedcapacity. These cost can be viewed in several waysbut did not exceed $50, 000. (Actually under ValleyView's implementation Method, one-fourth of thepupils receive fifteen days less instruction and onefourth receive thirty days less instruction during thefirst fiscal year than under the traditional calendar.This defers some $150,000 in staff costs indefinitely.)

Capital outlay for modifications to existing facilities-chiefly air conditioning. The building that requiredair conditioning in the district vas difficult to modify.Surveys of costs for air conditioning existing facilitiesoffer varied estimates. From these surveys andValley View's experience, it would seem that $3, 500per classroom would be a maximum figure. Lesssatisfactory installations (window units, for example)could bring that figure to below $1, 000.

Valley View did not choose to make other modificationsto their existing classroom facilities. If considerationis given to building modifications, it then will be toenhance certain program changes that grew out of all-year operation not as a direct result of the 45-15 Plan.

What, beside initial costs or changes in the instructional pro-gram, are new costs due to 45-15 operation? Pupil transportation isa unique example. Even through careful scheduling, the cost pertransported pupil will increase depending on route efficiences. Further,if new buildings had been built, presumably the pupil transportationload would have been reduced because of the new schools' locations.So, in this case, having fewer schools costs more than having moreschools.

Other costs, such as building operation, maintenance,cafeteria, etc., when compared to their level had new buildings beenconstructed, are certainly not higher and apparently are somewhatlower than the traditional year allows. In any case, these cost differ-ences are insignificant in the Valley View District and completelysubject to the discretion exercised by operating supervisors.

The one possible exception worth further study is the cost ofoperating air conditioning. The first summer of 45-15 operation didnot produce any measurable standards. It is expected that theincreased cost of utilities in Valley View during the current year willbe between $45, 000 and !:;50,000 although twice that was budgeted.This cost is higher than the cost that wcr.tld be incurred to heat andlight the equivalent additional space during the winter. During thesecond summer's operation, the district will attempt to monitor thesecosts and develop standards for Continued operation.

151- 145